Informatica Intelligent Data Management Cloud (IDMC) Reviews

My company does not specifically focus on selling the solution to a particular sector. My company generally sells the solution to various sectors, including manufacturing and finance.

Informatica Enterprise Data Catalog is a compact tool. Many products operate as a data system solution or as a data catalog tool. The product is helpful when it comes to data transformation. If you would like to solve specific data-related problems, Informatica Enterprise Data Catalog can serve as a useful product.

I cannot specifically point out an area in Informatica Enterprise Data Catalog that needs improvement since it properly functions as a data catalog tool. You cannot use something like Atlas to get catalog ranges, making Informatica Enterprise Data Catalog a comparatively powerful tool. The UX and UI of the solution are areas with certain shortcomings where improvements can be made in the future.

If I want to get some extra features in the product, I can contact Informatica's research and development team, who can add some new features to the product and make the tool available in the market.

I have been using Informatica Enterprise Data Catalog for more than ten years. My company has a partnership with Informatica.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Though there are some bugs in the solution, Informatica's research and development team, along with Informatica's customer service team, supports my company in solving such bug-related issues.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Informatica Enterprise Data Catalog can be a good solution that is really easy to use when it comes to enterprise-sized companies, but it may pose some challenges for small and medium-sized companies.

Most companies to whom my company provides the solution are enterprise-sized businesses.

I rate the technical support a ten out of ten. My company has a partnership with Informatica, and we provide Informatica's products to the end users or customers. Informatica has to provide my company with good support in order to hold on to its customers who deal with my company.

Positive

I rate the product's initial setup a nine and a half to ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy.

Most of the companies to whom my company provides the solution deploy it on an on-premises model. My company also sells the cloud version of the solution while also offering our customers the option to move from on-premises to the cloud version of the solution.

My wife runs a pharmacy, and she uses an ERP solution for sales-related activities, the data of which I can move to the cloud in ten minutes if she chooses Informatica Enterprise Data Catalog.

With Informatica Enterprise Data Catalog, measuring the return on investment can be hard. I rate the return on investment a seven on a scale of one to ten, where one is zero return on investment, and ten is a hundred percent return on investment.

The price of the product is something that may vary from customer to customer. I rate the product's pricing a five on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive.

If a customer or business wants to easily maintain their data domains, they can opt for Informatica Enterprise Data Catalog.

I rate the overall product an eight to nine out of ten.

The most valuable features of Informatica MDM are the IDQ and RDM data management. PowerCenter is the most widely used feature of Informatica MDM.

Informatica MDM has a complex user interface, which could be improved.

I have been using Informatica MDM for four years.

I rate Informatica MDM an eight out of ten for stability.

I rate Informatica MDM a ten out of ten for scalability. We plan to increase the usage of the solution in the future.

I rate Informatica MDM a four or five out of ten for ease of initial setup.

Our organization's deployment process for Informatica MDM took two to three months. A third-party team did the solution's deployment. Around 10 to 12 IT specialists and engineers were required for the solution's deployment.

Informatica MDM's pricing is not cheap but comparable to other vendors.

I advise others looking into using Informatica MDM in the future to have their use cases in order and know what they want to use it for.

Overall, I rate Informatica MDM a six out of ten.

I am a consultant and I use the solution to scan databases and lineages for my clients.

We can scan anything. We can scan reports, XML and JSON files also. That's a good thing about the Informatica Enterprise Data Catalog.

IEDC can improve the comparison of lineages, which is one thing I see in other data catalog tools that Informatica does not have, basically data catalog tools.

I have been using Informatica Enterprise Data Catalog for three years.

I rate the stability of the solution an eight out of ten.

I rate the scalability an eight out of ten. We currently have ten to 15 users using the solution and our client is a medium-sized business.

I rate the initial setup a seven out of ten, because it is pretty straightforward. The solution took two to three days for the initial setup.

When deploying IEDC, one should have a server ready and a lot of open ports, but otherwise it is straightforward.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use Informatica MDM for master data maintenance across our organization. We have multiple departments, like material real estate, trading, and supply. We use it for consolidation, harmonization, and central master data maintenance. We are also integrating it with the nonrecipient systems.

I like that Informatica MDM has robust matching technology. Informatica MDM is also porting the external Java applications for validations. I can consider that a must-have. It is also exposed to Rest API calls, and we can engage in real-time integrations with any third-party systems.

The configurations could be better. It is a bit confusing because we must develop two tools when building a data model in Informatica MDM. Even though Informatica MDM is a single tool, we have our hub console plus the provisioning tool within that. Whatever data model we are building in the hub console, we have to develop it in the provisioning tool again. It is double the work to create a data model. 

We are also using external calls or the Java custom plans functions. This can be both positive and negative. Since MDM as a client does not support any complex validation, we have to depend on the external call or a Java call. Every time we deployed, the entire solution was impacted if something went wrong. 

I have been using Informatica MDM for four years.

Informatica MDM can be more stable. There are some issues and some crashes, and sometimes, with the data load, we usually feel like we are doing an initial data load for any project. Sometimes, it could also be down to the production environment.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give stability a six.

Informatica MDM is a scalable solution. We probably have 1000 direct and indirect users with multiple use cases. But people solely working with Informatica MDM might be around 200 or 300. Most users are from business IT data support.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give scalability an eight.

Technical support is very responsive.

Positive

I was using SAP MDM, which is currently end of its life, so we migrated from SAP MDM to Informatica MDM.

The initial setup is straightforward. We have to make a jar file which we have to download from the link and download it as a client in our local mission. However, there are some challenges if we deploy Informatica MDM with IDQ on-premises. The deployment time depends on the use case. One or two people can maintain this solution.

We have seen a return on investment. From a business perspective, there have been many improvements since we migrated from SAP MDM.

I would recommend Informatica MDM to potential users. Even though Informatica MDM does not come with data quality, Informatica as a whole has some of the right tools. We have embedded the MDM with the IDQ informatic data quality in ways we can interact. It is the best fit for non-SAP systems.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Informatica MDM an eight.

I'm a freelance consultant, so I work for a few different clients on different projects. Sometimes I do system integrations, and sometimes it's more of the deployment of the tool itself. 

Informatica Axon is mainly used for master data management because it's quite a powerful tool. Lots of clients are struggling because Collibra is not an MDM tool. Azure has some possibilities in the data factory for MDM, but in the end, it doesn't have the engine that Informatica has. I see quite a few clients bring Informatica into the architecture for ETL processes. They use it to extract, transfer, and load data, in addition to MDM, since they're a bit restricted with other tools.

I think definitely what my clients find strong about the solution is all of the processes that it can do. You can extract and transfer your data as you wish it to be consumed later. I definitely hear that this adds value to the tool. 

Another thing I hear clients say is that you can use the MDM modeling functionality as a kind of engine to do data cleansing before you consume the data.

Also, for example, Collibra works closely together with Azure, which works closely together with Informatica and Google because the clients have needs that can't be fulfilled all by one platform. Solutions needs to fit into that architecture, and Informatica can fit in there, and that's appreciated in the market.

There is always room for improvement in making the look and feel more user-friendly. There are also some technical issues sometimes with integrations because clients have a lot of different types of data sources.

One thing I miss with Informatica is the sandbox environment. I do freelance consulting, meaning I give trainings, and sometimes clients ask me to give a training in my own environment, my sandbox environment. 

I have an environment that Collibra provides me with for certifications of training, so I can use a kind of sandbox to actually show a few things to clients.  I have the same thing with Microsoft. With Informatica, it's a bit more difficult. They're not that willing to provide the sandbox to an individual consultant, so I'm just on my own. That's a bit of a pity because sometimes if a client has something that is not configured, I can quickly configure it in my own environment and then show it in a demo. I don't have that opportunity with Informatica. I have to work on the client's system, which then sometimes causes security problems.

I don't have complaints about the stability, and I don't see it as a big issue coming up with my clients. The app sometimes had issues for some clients but it was not business critical or actually impacting them.

I think it is scalable, but that is not really the focus of my work. There are a lot of reasons I can give that the scalability might be affected, but they are actually not really related to the tool itself, but just how you build it in.

If I have a problem with the client and I'm a bit stuck, the support is really good. I can fall back on the people from support and they're quite willing to help. 

It can also help the client because I do a project for six or twelve months, and then I'm gone. If the client has a question after that, they can talk to the support and it's really good. 

From what I have experienced, I would give the technical support an eight out of ten. 

Positive

I think the setup is quite easy if you are data-minded. If you don't have any clue about data management or don't have that background, you're not going to be able to do it. You need to have a bit of technical understanding to do it in the correct way. If you're completely new and you don't have that background of experience, then it's a bit harder, and you'll need to follow a step-by-step plan.

I see clients starting to set it up from scratch and it takes three years. If a client says they want to deploy it within their whole organization, then, in general, you need to count about three years because it's not only the tool. You also need to set up your governance and your organization on it. All of your processes need to be aligned with the tool, so it's a three-year program in general.

Both for the business end users and for the technical people, the maintenance is more on the technical side. For example, for the API connections, the batch processes, and the real-time processes, it's not always easy. One of the things that I always say to my clients is that they need to document everything, and that helps. I tell them to build into their project a documentation pillar where they document everything that they do, like their MDM and rules. It's easier if they have good documentation, but it's still a challenge. Without documentation, it's hard.

I think definitely starting it up gradually, meaning don't buy the tool and then start trying to put everything in from the beginning. First, think about: What do I want to bring into the tool? Which sources do I want to go integrate with the tool? Which data, which business areas do I want to cover with that? You need to do a modeling exercise. You need to do some preparation work first and take it slow. Start small, take a specific business unit or data domain, and then show the value for your business. Then the budget will come, and you can do more with the tool. 

I rate this solution as an eight out of ten.

I'm a senior architect and we are partners with Informatica. 

The solution offers good data governance.

I've found that whatever functionalities are available on-prem, can become a bit of a challenge sometimes in the cloud. There are no simple rules for customization so they need to be applied which is a challenge on the cloud side.

I've been using this solution for four years. 

Informatica stability is great. Even now, Purview has evolved a lot, but we haven't used it to the same extent. 

The solution is scalable. 

We are partnered with Informatica, so we don't have an issue with technical support. 

Positive

Our preference is Purview when we're asked for a cloud solution because it's a cloud native and the same applies when taking cost into account. Deployment is easier with Purview. If an organization is going for a hybrid solution and there's a lot of governance and complex rules involved, my first choice is Informatica. If that's not the case then I go for Purview.

Without experience, it may be somewhat difficult but I don't find it particularly complex because there's a lot of training and documentation available. We've already had a lot of experience so it's a piece of cake for us. 

Licensing costs are not fixed and I know that Informatica offers discounted prices to certain customers. Microsoft is cheaper.

The solution is suitable for enterprise or mid-size organizations. But if there are customer-related or different domain issues and it has some kind of regulatory impact and a lot of external agencies come into the picture, then it's always good to go with the Informatica Axon.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

We don't use profiling as much, however, we do use it, in certain cases, for profiling. We use the Analyst tool to do out-of-box, high-level profiling of data to see high-level quality of completeness, and uniqueness, et cetera. Mainly, we use the Developer tool to connect to the sources and to write data quality rules.

It has improved our organization. 

We started from just pretty much having flat files, and then doing some basic transformations, then writing back to Excel or QFD files. 

We gradually moved to more analytical tasks. You don't just do statistical data quality you also do analytical. You do lots of joins with other sources and do the consistency checks, and to do more complex logic, and build metrics. 

We use Tableau on the back of it to present the data and data quality, and then monitor it. We use it more like a batch process to build pipelines, and then, using Tableau, monitor the results of it and those metrics. Now, we work more with live updates and do that more than the batch.

It's probably one of the leading lights in ETL. They have really good built-in functionalities, or algorithms, that you can use to transform or process data and validate and standardize.

The solution is stable.

It's not too had to set up the cloud version. 

Support is helpful and responsive. 

We are in this transition mode, where we haven't yet got IDMC, the cloud version, so we don't actually have hands-on experience and have not actually seen the features. All we rely on, at the moment, is just the available documentation. What I don't like on the IDQ side is just the fact that in the on-premises version, you have all these applications, with separate configurations. In the cloud solution, it is fixed so that you have everything on one platform.

The performance isn't as good on-premises. For example, when you install clients, it's slow compared to the cloud. Still, we need to see. We haven't experienced it ourselves. 

The upgrades are a downside. On-premises you manage all the changes in the software. You have to do that yourself, and if there's some problem with compatibility, it makes things that much harder. With the cloud, everything is managed by Informatica on the servers.

Managing the licenses with the on-premises version was difficult. However, with the cloud, it will be much simpler. 

I've been using the solution for the last six or seven years. 

Once you set everything up, it is pretty stable. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It is way more stable than Hadoop and other applications. 

In terms of scaling, we used the clusters, and the processing was on Hadoop side. If we needed any extra space or any service, it was just managed there, so it was outside of Informatica.

Originally, we had 20 people using the solution, and then it was reduced to less than ten.

We do use it as much as we can for its purposes. In the past, we used that for the whole ETL process with data loads, and then we moved to Hadoop storage. At the moment, we are only going to be using Cloud Data Quality and others for cleansing, standardization, and deduplication, and then using some other Azure capabilities.

I've dealt with support in the past. There were issues, and we had to deal directly with Informatica for some hotfixes. They were good. They just got straight to the point and were helpful overall.

Positive

It is way more complex to install on-premises than in the cloud.

With the cloud, the installation will be way easier since you only install these secure agents. They have many different connectors, so it is definitely less hustle to install all these machines, and all these applications. On-premises, it was more user-based. Now, it's service-based, and you just pay for what you use and the licenses as well. 

We had myself, an architect, and a developer as well as help from Informatica while handling the setup.

We have about two or three people that can deploy and maintain the solution. They also cover other applications, not just Informatica.

We had Informatica support, and we had an internal group of people with Informatica knowledge who handled the solution. For some parts, we were involved as well, and we handled them ourselves. 

We're still in the early stages of moving toward the cloud. We have not seen an ROI yet.

When you are using the on-premises version, managing the licenses is quite difficult. However, on the cloud, you just pay for what you use, and it's a lot easier. With the cloud, if you want MDM, you pay for it, and if you want PowerCenter, you pay for it; however, if you don't want it or don't use it, you don't pay. We'll just pay for Data Quality, as it has all of the features we need inside it. 

I'm not involved in the conversations around licensing and agreements. That said, my understanding is that Informatica is pretty expensive. I'd likely rate it two to two and a half out of five in terms of affordability.

We definitely considered others and had StreamSets used for some other purposes. The company that I moved out of was going to be switching off Informatica at some point due to licensing, et cetera, and they just chose to go to StreamSets with Snowflake for storage. 

I haven't researched enough about other products in relation to Informatica.

We are moving to the cloud version. On-premises, we were on version 10.4.2, and that moved to 10.5. Soon, we will be on the cloud.

We're using IDMC, which is not just Data Quality. It has governance, Axon, and other applications in it.

We're just a customer.

I'd advise people to research use cases before beginning. Companies need to understand what they are trying to achieve, figure out their requirements, and then appraise the solution. 

While Informatica is good in terms of Data Quality and is probably the leading option, you need to be clear about budget, et cetera.

I would rate the solution seven out of ten.

A lot of times, we use it for basic profiling. That's its most common use case. Currently, we are also in the process of establishing a set of ongoing processes around Data Quality that would feed into and augment our current metadata. So, from that standpoint, our usage is primarily around some of the basic dimensions of data quality, such as completeness, conformity, consistency, timeliness, accuracy, etc. We measure each of those or at least create quality rules that measure each of those aspects. We're in the process of doing this for all of the data that's currently feeding into our analytics engine. These are some use cases that we're currently doing on a daily basis.

There are a couple of valuable features. One is that it is very quick on the profiling. So, you get a very fast snapshot of the type of data that you're looking at from the profiling perspective. It can highlight anomalies in the data.

The other valuable feature of the Data Quality tool is the flexibility of using their Analyst tool to create a mapping specification, which allows you to join multiple sources of information. You can then create rules within that data set. You can apply aggregations and all other types of functions, and then you can feed that into the profiling tool. From the profiling tool, you can then create your scorecards. It can be two-step where you're using that mapping engine to integrate multiple sources. If you don't have a need for that, you can do a lot more sophisticated mappings inside their Developer tool, and then maybe do an analyst type of mapping engine. So, you can do straightforward data quality within the Analyst tool, or you can do more sophisticated data quality within the Developer tool, at least as far as the rules are concerned.

Their UI needs improvement. Their scorecards and reporting also need improvement. Their data quality reporting, especially their dashboards and scorecards, is lackluster at best. Its reporting capabilities are limited. If you want to do anything beyond its limited reporting capabilities, then you're going to have to use an external reporting tool such as Power BI or something like that.

It has a few glitches that they haven't fixed. For example, while creating a new scorecard, when you get up to a point, you have to stop and save what you've done. You have to exit and then go back into the tool to finish up your work. From the development aspect, using their scorecard tool has a couple of glitches in it. This might be a tool that they're going to eventually phase out. So, they're just not doing a lot of work on it. I've been living with it for a few years now. I've learned that I got to save my work, and then I got to get back into it to finish up what I was doing.

I have been using this solution for at least five years.

It is pretty stable.

As far as I know, it scales pretty well. The part of the problem that we have is with the way it saves the results. When it saves the result, it creates a physical copy of some of the data results and stores it. So, when we're processing, for example, 500 million rows of data, depending on the type of rules that we have and how we're doing it, it can quickly use up a lot of space. We've had some issues with some of the space and storage. It scales, but you still have to be careful how you configure it so that you don't use up all your resources. We've added a lot of disk space, and we still occasionally have problems.

Currently, we have maybe half a dozen heavy users, but we're probably going to scale that up to 20 to 25.

It is straightforward.

I would rate it a six out of ten.