Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Oracle GoldenGate vs SAS Access comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 19, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Oracle GoldenGate
Ranking in Data Integration
7th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
51
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SAS Access
Ranking in Data Integration
55th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Data Integration category, the mindshare of Oracle GoldenGate is 3.4%, down from 3.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SAS Access is 0.4%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Data Integration
 

Featured Reviews

PatrickKuria - PeerSpot reviewer
Syncs data in real-time while managing transaction volumes
The most valuable feature of Oracle GoldenGate is its ability to sync data in real-time, which is crucial for me. I set it to a master-master pluggable database that serves as a container used from clones to provide test environments for various teams. This makes it very effective in managing high-volume transactions. The ability to sync data in real time is a key feature I rely on.
Robert Heck - PeerSpot reviewer
The solution is stable, scalable, and flexible
I rate the solution eight out of ten. The number of people required to maintain the solution is dependent on the other applications running. The solution in itself does not require a lot of maintenance. The solution is flexible and I recommend it when you have more complex applications with special requirements.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"This is a powerful solution provided by one of the most respected companies in the computer industry."
"The solution's existing SaaS platform for data integration gives us an edge."
"It works best with Oracle."
"The live application feature is most valuable. The solution is stable. I rate it a seven out of ten."
"With Oracle GoldenGate, you can easily sync the tables and put them into the ODS database."
"It is quite scalable."
"GoldenGate can connect and collect data from multiple sources, such as SQL Server."
"It allows us to migrate from one system to another, from one server to another, with no downtime, no outage. We can get the data synchronized with multiple databases and then switch the connectivity across to the new servers."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is the ease of access to the data in those databases."
"The most valuable part of SAS/ACCESS is what it is made for: connecting to remote systems that are not part of your physical SAS environment."
"The most valuable feature is you have native access to the external databases."
 

Cons

"There is room for improvement in Oracle GoldenGate's pricing, which is a bit high."
"The solution's licensing price is very expensive and could be made more competitive."
"It would be great if Oracle added some enhanced features or more functionalities to Oracle GoldenGate."
"The product is not easy to use."
"IBM CDC has one central control while Oracle GoldenGate has two controls. In IBM CDC we can do all things in frontend. The solution needs to incorporate a feature where we can connect it to a standby database."
"The main problem of Oracle GoldenGate is that sometimes, the processes get abended. Data consistency is also challenging."
"The solution, in general, should be easier to use, with less need to perform workarounds within the system."
"Troubleshooting issues is not always the easiest. It should be easier to troubleshoot. Their support can also be improved. They don't read your problem statement and waste a lot of time. GoldenGate for big data is actually a separate license. It is sort of a separate product, but it might fall underneath your GoldenGate category. If we're talking about big data, its interaction with big data sources is poorly documented."
"The pricing model needs to be reconsidered and adjusted."
"The solution can provide access to the newer databases that come out sooner."
"I can't really recall any missing feature or general improvement that is needed. We don't really add too many new kinds of databases and therefore our needs are already met."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We have an enterprise license for it. It might be for three years or so. I'm not aware of any additional costs to the standard licensing fee."
"Licensing for Oracle GoldenGate is paid yearly."
"The licensing model should be improved to be more cost-effective for the end users."
"Its price can be better. It is a bit crazy, and its licensing is very difficult to understand. I would rate it one out of five in terms of pricing. There don't seem to be any additional costs."
"The tool needs to improve its pricing."
"It is an expensive product."
"The price is high. Consequently, when clients or customers acquire the solution, they tend to utilize it to its maximum extent due to this factor."
"The one feature that I think Oracle could perhaps consider is, at the moment, the Veridata option is an extra cost. Golden Gate is an expensive product. You pay a lot for the best. But not including the Veridata license to prove that everything is working correctly... The big improvement for me would be to have that license built in. That would take it to the next level. That would make it a much better product. You may want to look at buying term licenses if you've just got a single migration to do. In that situation, you might want a term license for perhaps a year to save a lot of money, rather than buying a perpetual license."
"The pricing model is complex and is based on modular packages as well as the size of the applicable environment."
"The solution's pricing and licensing are expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user99375 - PeerSpot reviewer
Mar 31, 2014
Oracle GoldenGate vs. Oracle Active Dataguard
As an Oracle DBA, while working upon high availability of your database you may stumble upon various Oracle strategic capabilities that fall into categories of Oracle Replication. Oracle provides various technologies for replication like GoldenGate, streams, and Active Dataguard. Replication…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
22%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
24%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Insurance Company
10%
Government
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Oracle GoldenGate?
The product is reliable for data integrity.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Oracle GoldenGate?
The pricing of Oracle GoldenGate depends on the discount we receive from Oracle. If the customer orders a larger quantity, we get a more flexible price. The list price is high, and the price can so...
What needs improvement with Oracle GoldenGate?
It would be helpful if we had an API for the patching and for upgrading from one version or from a build to another build in future updates of Oracle GoldenGate. If AI was doing patching, it would ...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

GoldenGate
SAS/Access
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Japan Exchange Group, Daewoo E&C, Herbalife, Starwood Hotels & Resorts, Canon, Turk Telekom
Los Angeles County, West Midlands Police, Credit Guarantee Corporation, Canada Post, Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty
Find out what your peers are saying about Oracle GoldenGate vs. SAS Access and other solutions. Updated: August 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.