Informatica Intelligent Data Management Cloud (IDMC) Reviews

The organizations I work with often have trouble getting buy-in from business users and understanding how data governance relates to them or where the data lineage is. We use Axon in two key areas. 

The first is automating data governance processes, policies, and roles in terms of data stewards, data owners, etc. Those process flow charts are typically stored in a PowerPoint, Excel, or board document. Everyone involved in data governance would have to send emails manually and such. Axon allows them to automate all that. So if there's a data owner that needs to update a definition, a request that needs to be flagged, or a data quality error, all that is embedded into the Axon system. That's one reason our clients go with it. 

The use case is embedding the data or the business glossary into the day-to-day workflow. For example, we could integrate it with Tableau. When people are looking at a Tableau report, they understand exactly what the data lineage is and where this data is coming from. They'll also know exactly what those business glossary terms mean, so they can more accurately interpret and analyze the report.

Axon does one interesting thing that I don't think other tools do as well. It lets you rate data and incorporates Informatica's data quality feature into it. There are little indications and graphics that show you how good the data quality is, and you can drill into it to see where potential issues lie. 

Users can comment on the data, tag people, and ask questions or rate the data one to five based on their experience, which helps eliminate data silos. You have all your information right there, and it's easier for future users to know which data to draw from.

The cloud version of Axon is far behind the on-prem, and many of my clients want to go fully to the cloud. However, Axon has to be an on-prem installation. I would like to see their cloud products catch up with their on-prem capabilities. 

I would like to see Informatica add more automation and AI. Some of that is already there, but it would be helpful to have some automation to speed up the process of manually tagging and moving components of your IT setup into your business glossary and the front end.

We started our first Axon implementation at one of our clients in the fall of 2021. Two of my other clients are about to purchase the technology and start using it.

Axon is stable. 

Axon is scalable.

Informatica support has been good. These data governance and metadata products are some of the newer products on the market technology-wise, so I've been impressed with their responsiveness and the tool's maturity.

Installing Axon is straightforward. If the cloud version were more robust it would be easier, but it's just fine for the on-prem solution. Two people should be enough to deploy and support it. 

I rate Informatica Axon nine out of 10. If you're planning to implement Axon, I recommend having an identified data governance lead. I think the most difficult part of implementing this is getting your people and processes aligned, so you know what you're putting into the system. Having a clear data governance manager is the most helpful data governance practice for an organization.

We use Informatica to extract data from production. It's mainly the configuration of the systems. We extract data from one site in the same system and mass customer data to the test system. It's a list of customers that is a subset of the data. 

In our CRM, we have data on our customers, and the data in that system is a copy of the production environment. We have all the configurations manually modified to work as a test, but we can extract only new clients, which is a problem. We need to have a CRM with only the configuration but not the customers. 

My plan is to make Informatica work with the CRM. If it works, I am sure that I can get the budget to make it work with other systems, but the first system that I need to work with is CRM. The other ones are less important and don't have the same impact of making it work with the CRM. We're at about 80 percent completion with this project. 

Informatica is user-friendly, stable, and scalable. These three aspects are the most valuable for us. If we can make it work well with the CRM, we can continue or try again this year to complete that part of the project. I am confident that this kind of solution is what we need because we have a third-party resource that works in the development. 

We need to have a lot of hardware infrastructure to make our test system work. We use a complete copy of the production environment for testing, which is a real problem for us. The problem is not with Informatica as a provider per se. It's more of an issue with our system providers, but we need support to complete the projects. That's our real situation. With the pandemic, we have undergone many changes that have slowed down these projects in the last few years.

We have the license to deploy Informatica on any system we want. Right now, we aren't using it as much as we thought we would. We understand the solution, but it isn't easy in some areas. One problem is we have systems in which we don't know all the relationships among the data, and we need support from our providers to get that information. That is one of our most complicated problems implementing it.

Informatica's support understands the solution, but they lack the experience we need for our use case. That was one thing that we prioritized when we started searching for this kind of solution. 

Informatica is working well, but we need access to the production databases to extract the data. The real problem is understanding the data in the system that we don't own or provide. Those are the most problematic to implement with this solution. We make it work with what our team has developed. Deployment took four to six months. Right now, we have one developer and two or three system administrators using Informatica, so it takes about three or four people to deploy and manage the solution. 

We worked with the team we used for all the installations. They made it work. I can say that wasn't as good as I expected when we purchased the solution. When we started the implementation, we understood that they didn't have the research that works in this project because we did a lot of work to understand the data from the implementation team. That wasn't what we wanted because we knew that Informatica would be the most complicated of all the systems we would implement in the extraction. After all, they are our clients, and almost all other systems depend on that system. 

We have a perpetual license for Informatica, and we only need to pay for support. However, because we're not actively using it at the moment, we don't have the budget to continue with the support.

We evaluated several solutions, including IBM InfoSphere Optim and Delphix. We purchased 15 licenses at the same time that totaled around $230,000.

I rate Informatica Persistent Data Masking eight out of 10. It's important to have a robust understanding of the knowledge you need in the system. That is one of the main problems that we have. You need firm control over the systems to do data masking. All of the data is a subset because we want to make the subset and the data masking, but you have to have good control over the systems. I think that is the key.

We have it deployed on the cloud, but I don't think Informatica has been involved much with cloud-based solutions. They have multiple issues, especially related to LDAP and other configurations. Plus, their certified and supported versions are also not what every client has, so they're still evolving in terms of AWS. I don't think they have any support on Azure. They say that for the time being in the Azure setup, you can install MDM the way you would install it on-premise, but we don't have a built-in solution as they have for the on-prem database. That is my understanding for now.

With a Java user configuration, I will probably see 70 to 75 percent of the use cases met. I'm not talking about workflow integration. Instead of going to an active worksite, I'm managing everything from Informatica PowerCenter. I used to do those things, but now I'm just keeping my viewpoint specifically within MDM. I think with the configuration, you can achieve 75 percent of use cases. New tools are coming out that will enable you to achieve 90 percent of use cases with the out-of-the-box configuration, but I would like to keep Informatica tight here. Otherwise, you need a Java user edit course and other things to do multiple things that you cannot configure out of the box. They have to go through those use cases to do something if those can also be configured rather than coded.

We promote our code changes from a lower to a higher environment, which is highly complex when working with a multi-domain MDM like Informatica. This is the biggest obstacle for Informatica MDM, and I think they should change it because that's very time-consuming. You have to be very, very focused. Also, Informatica should develop a process where all the application servers are synced for people using multiple application servers. That's another significant drawback I've seen with Informatica MDM.

Informatica MDM's pricetag should come down. They have to cut some costs.

I rate Informatica MDM nine out of 10. It's one of the best tools in its class. It gets a high rating because of the improvements in the latest version. I was working on a very outdated edition that was seven to 10 years old. There were multiple issues, but they have made a lot of progress, especially in the newer version. For example, they moved away from DB to a different DB-sorted feature. 

We primarily use it as an enterprise-level firewall. 

I have to incorporate my particular data, schema into Axon. I can do it in two to three ways. Either I have to do a bulk upload feature in Axon, and I have to create an Excel sheet and I have to incorporate all the columns, all the attributes, all the asset columns, and their definitions, and everything into the Excel sheet and then I have to upload it. That is a manual process, and an SME has to be required to accomplish that feature.

The feature of auto-onboarding of the assets, enterprise assets via EDC is good. EDC will scan the data within the technical metadata, and then you can associate that technical metadata, and then Axon can consume that technical metadata and associate the business metadata to that technical metadata. Following some Axon systems, we have to create some systems to associate that technical metadata, as there has to be some logical hierarchy that has to be followed. It allows for some flexibility. You can have related features like policies, business glossaries, or maybe some regulatory compliance feature policies, et cetera, as well as governance.

If you have a DQ rule, data quality rule, on any particular subject area or any particular column, then one cannot create directly a rule in Axon. It has to ingest the technical tool we create in IDQ then into the Axon.

Informatica Axon itself is not a very complete tool. It's highly dependent on Enterprise Data Catalog and IDQ. Blending data catalog and IDQ makes it complete. When I say blending, I mean in the sense they have internal plugins, internal listeners. Axon has internal listeners for reading EDC, as well as IDQ components. EDC is Enterprise Data Catalog, which's a metadata catalog from Informatica.

I would like to have broader connectivity. Axon currently is limited. It cannot connect to any other application. It does not have any connectors for other applications. I want more applications to have connectivity to Axon. Axon should create more plugins for connecting to other applications, which are currently dominating the market.

The solution still is a bit manual in its functionality. We want t to be more automation-driven.

The solution needs to be more resilient.

I've been working with the solution for the last three years.

Currently, what happens in a week or two, the server goes for a toss because Axon still uses PostgreSQL as its database. They have all the services and they, basically, fetch all the backend tables. All the tables are in the PostgreSQL database. That is also a kind of constraint for Axon as PostgreSQL nowadays is a solution that no one uses. That's why the server always goes for a toss and we have to restart the server. They have to make it more resilient. The resilience is missing. 

For example, in EDC they have multiple nodes. When one node goes down, you can still use the backup node. You have to just configure it. In Axon, this does not work like that. They have to make it more vigilant instead of having to restart the cycle and again restart all the services, pre-configured services to get it up and running. That thing is a bit scary sometimes as, over in product staging and dev, it works, however, for production, if it goes down and we need our scanning and some processes running, then it's pretty tough.

Technical support, nowadays, is a bit of a let-down. They will reply once you raise a ticket. They normally categorize their ticket as a P1, P2, or P3. A P1 ticket is for production for the first failure and the P2 and P3 are for normal failures. They reply promptly, however, the response is not very good. Earlier, GCS, Global customer support used to make sense and be helpful. However, nowadays, their quality of service is really going down. The person that comes to attend the ticket is often not very equipped, or not technically not very capable.

Therefore, you need to have a regular follow-up. Normally what they do is not solve the problem. They will ask you, source this, the source that, and then send some kind of justification instead of trying to solve the issue. Sometimes the client is not technically equipped to answer their ticket. They want to see some logs which get embedded. They ask businesses for those logs. Then, the business has to log into Unix, find a particular folder, and access that backlog. These become a challenge for our business as there are not that many Unix-friendly people. In any case, it lengthens the process and draws out the resolution.. 

When I started, I was using version 6.3 and now it's 7.2.

The solution is on-prem in the sense that it's a web browser. It's browser-based so that you can use it on your desktop for unblocking your firewall. It's an enterprise firewall, you can deploy it. Since it's browser-based, it does not matter where the server is. The server can be on-prem and it can be deployed on an iPaaS service or other infrastructure at your service.

Informatica has created the Axon brand in such a way that it's kind of an interesting strategy for them. Once you have Axon you cannot buy it as a standalone product. You will always have to buy IDQ and EDC. That's a sales strategy. However, they really need to improve on their customer support. I really would advise Informatica to work on support. They really need to catch up on this, and they really need to add more qualified engineers to their customer support team to meet the client's expectations.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

We are simply service providers; I don't think our relationship with Informatica is that strong. We have a financial client that has a very good relationship with Informatica. They were recently using PowerCenter and IDQ, but a couple of years ago, they purchased DIH. Recently they have been doing some POC using Informatica, Enterprise Data Catalog. They have a great relationship with Informatica. 

We don't use Informatica Data Integration Hub extensively. I enjoy using it to create multiple publishing models.

The solution is good but recently, we have stopped using this product because we were not using it extensively. If you are using Data Integration Hub, it should be as a centralized repository, where it can communicate with many systems. For our current client, we are only using it for two source systems, which are not driving big revenue. For this reason, we stopped using Data Integration Hub and started publishing the news directly.

At present, I am not sure how many sources it can communicate with (how many multiple connectors are available). Nowadays, they're coming up with many connectors. It can communicate with all of the Cloud connectors and Cloud databases. If they could leverage social media connectors, I think that would be great a great asset. If they added this feature, it would be much more scalable.

I have been using this solution for almost two years. 

We encountered a few bugs in the coding page, but we faced bigger issues with Informatica PowerCenter. The data was not loading correctly for certain multi-regional datasets; when we analyzed the data, we tracked it to the same code page from the starting point to the end. Other than that, we never faced any difficult situations.  

We never had to use their technical support. We resolved any issues ourselves and thankfully, we never experienced any problems that we could not handle. 

The initial setup was not very straightforward. Not complex, but not very simple either.

Deployment took roughly one week — 40 hours max from start to finish.

We have a team of 30 to 40 people who handle all maintenance-related issues. 

Informatica products are always increasing in price. Nowadays, many of their customers are leaving and seeking other data integration tools. That's the only drawback with Informatica. Performance and flexibility-wise, they're very user-friendly, but comparatively, their prices are a little bit too high.

Presently, everything is moving to the cloud, and moreover, many people are moving to Snowflake Data Warehouse, as it provides more scalability. I feel the usage of DIH is very limited compared to Snowflake because Snowflake holds and stores highly compressed data and allows you to use different cloud-based tools, including AWS services, DCP, and other services. Snowflake also comes with Matillion, which is a very good ETL tool.

The use of DIH is very limited. Anything that we do with DIH, can be done with Snowflake, regardless of the subscription you may have. There are plenty of use cases — you can use it to build tables and consume it from the downstream. For these reasons, I believe that DIH is currently not doing as well as Snowflake in the market.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of seven. Performance-wise, it could be better. The performance-related Issues could be due to low infrastructure, but for whatever reason, sometimes the performance is slow.

We primarily use the solution for tasks such as masking. It's used to mask the customer data.

We are using end-to-end features of Informatica. Everything comes under the product. We really like that the solution is part of a bigger use case that can all be under one umbrella system.

There are new features that are being built to help more closely link all of the solutions we use, and we like that they are always thinking about how each product interplays with the other.

We've used the solution for quite some time, so in our organization, the product is pretty mature.

There are lots of use cases surrounding the use of the product.

The integration could be a bit better. The process is something new. 

They need to include more documentation and support around the build.

It's my understanding that they are currently fixing quite a bit and building in updated capabilities in the upcoming version. We'll have to see what that looks like.

The general design of the resolution could simply be tweaked a bit.

I've been working with the solution for five or six years at this point. It's been quite a while.

We've worked on both the Windows and Linux platforms and have not had any issues with stability. It's been very good in both cases, and we have not faced any errors. There are no bugs and glitches. It doesn't crash.

We have 100 user licenses and we are using them in real-time. We work with an Indian bank that often requires more users. We can implement MDM to accommodate their needs at any given time.

I've worked with support from Oracle and a few other vendors, so I can compare it to those experiences. When I compare with other vendors, Informatica support is better, feedback-wise. Their documentation is great. They are very responsive to their customer base and very quick to respond to inquiries. We're very satisfied with their level of service.

I don't really have experience with other solutions. I only really know MDM.

The initial set up's complexity or simplicity depends on the requirements of the organization. Some have simpler implementation cases. Others are more complex. I would say for the simple to medium cases, the installation and deployment is very straightforward. 

When it comes to bigger builds, we need to be a bit careful in order to configure a few more settings to make it work properly. In general, the solution has simple to medium level complexity during the set up process.

The time for development usually takes a few days. It does depend on who is setting everything up. If you are well informed on the solution, the deployment process itself may only be a few hours. For a downtime point of view, you don't have too much time between products. Depending on when you do it, you can have 0% downtime as well, however, it would need to be strategically planned.

The solution has a couple of pricing models. You can go via can go a number of records, number of CPU, and various other items. I don't know what current model we follow. 

My experience on pricing is maybe four to five years old. I don't know what the current model is based on in our organization.

Although we're on version 10.3, we're working to move over to 10.4 soon. We're about to upgrade.

If you look at the Gartner quadrant, MDM is the top product. There are a few platforms available, however, I don't have good experience with other products in order to compare and to recommend. From my personal point of view, definitely I would recommend MDM.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. We're still testing a few capabilities that the solution provides, however, we aren't using them yet. We do plan to implement them in the future. Since we aren't extensively using the core features, I'm not giving them a higher score. We need to see how things progress.

At our company, we use Informatica MDM for data architecture and numerous other aspects of data warehouse, such as data designing or modeling. We recommend Informatica products to our customers based on their use cases, data volume, budget, and environment suitability.  

The product isn't mature enough to provide suitable connectors to various data engines. The performance of the solution in transporting data between data lakes and Big data infrastructure is not up to the mark. At our company, we use a similar solution called Spark, which is much better than Informatica MDM in terms of performance and speed. The data support capabilities of Informatica MDM can be improved. 

It's a stable product without any bugs or glitches. But overall Kafka is a better product than Informatica MDM. 

The product exhibits satisfying scalability. 

The tech support is satisfying from the vendor. The support team was able to respond and solve the issues in a very short time. I would rate the tech support an eight out of ten. 

Positive

Informatica MDM easily integrates with the Informatica environment as well as with third-party tools. But for some integrations, for instance, when Informatica MDM is integrated with SAP, the functionality slows down drastically; the task that would take five minutes with Spark takes five hours with Informatica MDM.

The same scenario occurs when Kafka is integrated with Informatica MDM. For popular database integrations such as Oracle and SQL, Informatica MDM functions well enough. 

The initial setup of the solution is straightforward. Our company professionals suggest that Informatica MDM should be on a Linux server instead of Windows. 

The product is very expensive compared to other competitor tools. Informatica MDM is not meant for small businesses but rather used by large enterprises like banks or government organizations. Informatica MDM can be purchased as a stand-alone product and doesn't come in an Informatica bundle. The support for Informatica MDM is not included in the standard licensing fees and must be purchased separately.  

I recommend that others test Informatica MDM with different integration tools before making a purchase decision. I also advise others to evaluate the use cases before choosing a product. Other popular competitor tools in the market include Collibra and SAP MDG. 

Informatica MDM fits our organization's use cases perfectly. When a customer of our company has a plethora of business products, VOCs need to be implemented, even if it's a different MDM solution than Informatica MDM.

Some customers depend on a single technology ERP, while others work with Oracle ERP or SAP, and sometimes they are using ERP and Informatica MDM in combination or migrating from one ERP to another. These use cases will impact the setup that already exists on the customer's site, and thus, the solution needs to be configured accordingly. I would rate Informatica MDM as eight out of ten. 

We use the solution for party data management. The tool ensures that the information is the same in every business system so that all the systems have the same view of what parties are involved in an agreement.

It is easy to create REST-based interfaces of the master data objects. It can be used for reading, creating, and modifying the master data objects of the parties, their addresses, and contact information. The creation and modification features always consider the data quality rules, and it is a very powerful way to provide a data interface to master data objects. It is missing in many other tools.

The solution meets the performance needs of my organization. There isn't much that Informatica doesn't do. The maintenance of the data quality rules has been improved. It’s a lot better than it was when we started. Replacing the old SOAP APIs with the new REST APIs is a great improvement. It’s still a work in progress. Some interfaces still use the old SOAP APIs.

The management of different properties is sometimes divided between different user interfaces. The tool should provide a unified user interface to manage the data objects.

I have been working with the tool for ten years.

The tool can scale according to our needs.

The initial setup was not difficult. We had very good support from Informatica’s professional services.

The team was a mix of in-house, vendor and other consultants.

The product has a high price point. However, it does not lack features. TIBCO EBX and Profisee are much cheaper. However, they lack features that Informatica MDM provides out of the box. Though the list price of Informatica MDM is high, it is negotiable.

I do not have experience with the new workflow engine. It is much more extensible because it is a full business process engine. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.