We performed a comparison between Microsoft MDS and SAS MDM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about SAP, Microsoft, TIBCO and others in Master Data Management (MDM) Software."The ease of use is valuable."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft MDS is its management."
"Technical support is very good."
"It's very easy to use."
"What I like about Microsoft, is that it has a huge database with many users."
"One of the main features I have found useful is the integration with Azure active directory."
"Unlike specialized tools, MDS is adaptable for various industries, making it a versatile choice for master data management."
"The most valuable feature is the administration console."
"One good feature is that SAS MDM comes bundled with the entire stack so we are in a position to place it with the client. So when a client wants an analytics tool plus BI, and they want to bring in other elements, that is when we look to MDM, because it is a single vendor."
"Most of the Microsoft partners, especially digitally, are separate. Personnel are business people, and they do not have technical expertise, so you end up as a company spending a lot of money training your staff and your engineers."
"The stability could be improved."
"The only drawback is that it does not have the matching, merging, and all true MDM components. For these, you have to use another competent called Data Quality Services (DQS). You need to plug it in and use it along with MDS for true MDM. Both of these are integrated together, but you have to do them separately, whereas, in Profisee, there are a couple of screens where you can configure the matching process, create matching rules, and other things, and everything is in one product, which is not the case with MDS. In order to implement a true MDM, you need MDS, DQS, and SSIS. You have to use MDS to store your golden records, DQS to configure and standardize all your rules and matching percentages, and SSIS to load the data to DQS and MDS. At the same time, you also need Melissa Data to clean up your addresses to validate and standardize the addresses. That's the main component of true MDM. It would be good if they can create a true matching component inside MDS and merge MDS and DQS."
"It would be a better option to have an on-cloud version."
"Microsoft MDS isn't getting strong support because Microsoft is focusing more on cloud solutions."
"JMD repositories have records that come in thousands and millions, which takes a long time to process."
"The Microsoft license cost could be lower."
"I do not like using Silverlight and Internet Explorer. The new 2019 version gets rid of that, which is one of the reasons why we are looking to switch."
"The initial setup was slightly complex. We did face a couple of issues such as the SAML integration not being very smooth. And linking communication with the metadata server was a bit of a challenge. Eventually, we were able to configure it properly."
Earn 20 points
Microsoft MDS is ranked 2nd in Master Data Management (MDM) Software with 18 reviews while SAS MDM is ranked 16th in Master Data Management (MDM) Software. Microsoft MDS is rated 7.6, while SAS MDM is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft MDS writes "Useful Excel plug-in, good scalability, and good integration with SQL Server and other Microsoft products". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SAS MDM writes "When a client wants an analytics tool plus BI, that is when we look to this solution". Microsoft MDS is most compared with Informatica MDM, Profisee, SAP Master Data Governance, TIBCO EBX and Stibo STEP MDM, whereas SAS MDM is most compared with Informatica MDM, Profisee and IBM Master Data Management on Cloud.
See our list of best Master Data Management (MDM) Software vendors.
We monitor all Master Data Management (MDM) Software reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.