We performed a comparison between SAS Access and SnapLogic based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Data Integration solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is the ease of access to the data in those databases."
"The product is easy to use and has many connectivity options."
"SnapLogic is more user-friendly than Boomi in terms of debugging. You can move the mouse to a place, and it will record and show the data easily."
"They are very good at building out new aspects according to customer requirements."
"SnapLogic is a great platform for establishing integrations among various systems or patterns by using any kind of interface. If something is not supported by predefined snaps – snaps are connectors in SnapLogic – you can create them (custom snaps) or write a script."
"I found SnapLogic valuable and what I found most valuable about it was its ETL feature. I also found its automation feature valuable. It can be used for automating manual activities. It can be used as a middleware for certain transactional data processing and minimal datasets and ETL activities."
"The feature I found most valuable in SnapLogic is low-code development. Low-code development has been very useful for simple processes, which is required for business users such as extracting details from a file or getting things reported by calling your web service. Calling your web service also becomes easier with SnapLogic because of the snaps available, so if you have the documentation, you can call an API. You don't have to write all those clients to call an API, so that is another feature I found very easy in SnapLogic. Configuring and managing all the file systems also become very handy with the solution."
"SnapLogice is a low-code development tool."
"The solutions ability to connect "snaps" or components to the graphic user interface is very intuitive, prevents errors, and makes implementations easy."
"The solution can provide access to the newer databases that come out sooner."
"The pricing model needs to be reconsidered and adjusted."
"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."
"SnapLogic doesn't provide any on-premises software, so users have only cloud-based software to use."
"One area for improvement in SnapLogic is the transparency in the flow of data. It needs to have more transparency. Right now, users only have a preview option at the end of any job flow, so at the end of any Snap Pack, there is a data preview option that lets you review the data and see how it's moving. What would make the solution better is more debugging and more access to change data from the preview panel or more functionality in terms of the preview option."
"I would like to see more performance-related dashboards, ones that display the cost of a pipeline, for instance. Also, it would be helpful to have management dashboards for overseeing pipelines and connections."
"What could be improved in SnapLogic is that it was not capable in terms of processing a large number of datasets, but at that point, SnapLogic was evolving. It didn't give a lot of Snaps. I heard recently there are a lot of Snaps getting added and the solution was being enhanced, particularly to connect different data sources. When I was working with SnapLogic six months to one year back, I faced the issue of it not being capable of handling a huge volume of datasets or didn't have much of Snaps, and that was the drawback. If there is any large number of data sets, that's based on or depends on your configuration. If it is a huge volume of data, other traditional ETL tools such as Informatica and Talend can process millions and billions of records, while in SnapLogic, the Snaplex fails or it returns an error in terms of processing that huge volume of data. Informatica, Talend, or any other ETL tool can run for hours in terms of jobs, while SnapLogic jobs fail when the threshold is reached. SnapLogic isn't able to withstand processing, but I don't know if that's still an issue at present, because the solution is getting enhanced and it's been more than six months to one year since I last worked with SnapLogic. There are now a lot of Snaps getting added to the solution, and if it can overcome the limitations I mentioned, SnapLogic could be the go-to tool because currently, it's not being used as much in organizations. It's being used comparatively less compared to other retail tools."
"The solution isn't ideal for complex processing or logic. We use another solution for that."
"We'd like zero downtime in the future."
"Ultra Pipelines provides real-time ingestion but it needs some adjustment."
"It needs some more snaps. I would like to see some of the features be changed in some of the snaps."
SAS Access is ranked 42nd in Data Integration with 3 reviews while SnapLogic is ranked 14th in Data Integration with 21 reviews. SAS Access is rated 9.0, while SnapLogic is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of SAS Access writes "The solution is stable, scalable, and flexible". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SnapLogic writes "Easy to set up, easy to use, and is low-code". SAS Access is most compared with Delphix and Toad Data Point, whereas SnapLogic is most compared with AWS Glue, IBM InfoSphere DataStage, Azure Data Factory, Informatica Cloud Data Integration and SSIS. See our SAS Access vs. SnapLogic report.
See our list of best Data Integration vendors and best Cloud Data Integration vendors.
We monitor all Data Integration 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.
