Informatica Intelligent Data Management Cloud (IDMC) Reviews

Informatica Enterprise Data Catalog is being used for recording enterprise assets, such as customers' products and vehicles. 

We a consulting service that provides information on how to enter the catalog or forms to collect the data catalog and enter them into Informatica Enterprise Data Catalog.

The most valuable feature of Informatica Enterprise Data Catalog is it provides clients with a full view of the enterprise data assets. For example, how many data assets they have and who owns them.

Informatica Enterprise Data Catalog could improve by having a much better user interface. It is not user-friendly.

In a new release of Informatica Enterprise Data Catalog, it would be beneficial to have some new features including data sharing.

I have been using Informatica Enterprise Data Catalog for approximately three months.

The solution is stable. There are some issues that can arise with Informatica Enterprise Data Catalog, but the vendor can resolve them.

We have 10 people that use the solution.

Informatica Enterprise Data Catalog sends support to our clients if they are having problems.

The initial setup of the Informatica Enterprise Data Catalog can be difficult. It can take approximately one week to install all the components, such as metadata.

There are vendors to do the installation and it can cost a lot of money over the week that it takes.

I recommend this solution to others. There is a large market in China for Informatica Enterprise Data Catalog.

I rate Informatica Enterprise Data Catalog a seven out of ten.

We use Informatica Cloud Data Integration because we have multiple sources for data integration, and we transform that data and load it into the database or QuickBooks.

There are fewer than 10 people using this solution in my organization.

I'm an integrator. I'm working with the latest version. 

It's deployed on cloud.

Data integration is the most valuable feature. The ability to connect to any of the sources and enterprise applications makes our lives easier.

We would like to have accessibility to the repository. We had that feature in Informatica PowerCenter, and we were able to have access to the repository query, which helped us build some tools, audit tools, and review tools. In Informatica Cloud, accessing the repository query is a challenge.

I have used this solution for about six years.

It's very stable.

It's scalable. 

We reach out to technical support frequently. We've had good experiences with them.

We previously used PowerCenter, DataStage, and Oracle Data Integrator.

I prefer Informatica Cloud Data Integration because of the ease of connecting to various connectors and various enterprise applications. The UI is also a valuable feature.

Initial setup isn't straightforward or complex. It's about medium difficulty. 

Deployment took about one week. It's not difficult to maintain.

Deployment was done in-house.

From the usage perspective, there is minimum ROI.

The pricing is high compared to other tools on the market.

We chose Informatica Cloud because we have Salesforce. If you're using Data Integration, App Integration, and many other features like operational insights, then the price is worth it. If you're only using the solution for data integration, then the price definitely isn't worth it.

We export APIs, and anyone can seek those APIs to have the data for target use cases. We hit the APIs that are exposed by external systems, and we get the data from them and process it.

We're using the latest version. It's deployed on cloud.

There are about five people who are using this solution in my organization.

We chose Cloud API Integration to connect to Salesforce.

The OAuth feature is the most valuable for authentication.

Recently, we're trying to connect to the Amazon API. There's no direct way to connect to Amazon APIs from Informatica Cloud. From Postman, there's a signature site called AWS Signature, which would actually generate the signatures for us with AWS APIs. In Informatica Cloud, we have to build the logic, and then we can generate the signature and hit the AWS APIs. Instead of generating that signature, it would be better if we could have the same connector in Informatica Cloud.

Sometimes when I open the processes or any service connectors, the labels are not properly displayed. The backend names are displayed rather than the front end label. I usually log out and log back in, and sometimes it disappears, and sometimes it doesn't.

I have used this solution for six years.

It's pretty stable. We don't have any concerns.

It's scalable.

I would rate technical support as six out of ten.

Setup is straightforward. It takes a week to do the installation and configuration.

It's not difficult to maintain.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten. 

I would recommend this tool to other users.

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.

The most valuable features are data quality, data integrate transformations, match-merge, and a few MDM solutions we build into data quality transformation. 

One area that could use improvement is the speed of the web interfaces. At present, they are very slow. I think it is essential that we are original and robust on-premises.  

I have worked with Informatica Data Quality for the past four and a half years.

You have excellent stability in the market in comparison to other data solutions.

We find that scalability is not an issue and have installed it on fourteen servers.

I have a lot of issues with their customer support and not getting the required technical information, which we actually need unless you can do a call with their senior technicians. Most of the cases that you raise are assigned to a junior technician. 

Positive

The initial setup is simple for a person who knows the company. If you already have one of their products you will find yourself comfortable doing the deployment. If you do not have experience with the company it is medium in relationship to complexity. 

I would continue to encourage the upgrades that are taking place every other one in order to release the new and relevant features. I would rate Informatica Data Quality 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.

It comes with lot of features and is a one-stop-shop solution for integration, data modeling, and data governance. Everything can be built under one particular umbrella. If any issues come up, then there won't be any blame game saying that it could be an integration issue or an MDM hub issue because it's wholly owned by Informatica. That's the biggest advantage of Informatica MDM over that of any other tools that are available on the market.

It has given us a lot of flexibility in terms of solutions.

This is a costly solution. We have several customers who evaluate it but then look for other solutions because of the cost.

At present, Informatica MDM comes as an on-premises or cloud-based solution. I would like to see them offer a SaaS-based MDM model. I think they are working on it.

I've worked with Informatica MDM for close to a year.

We have not had any performance issues.

It is a scalable solution.

The technical support is good depending on the SLA. Sometimes, they do have a busy schedule. When I contacted them for issues, someone joined the call if he/she was ready. Otherwise, we have had to wait for a day or two.

Informatica MDM is a costly solution because it comes as a bundle. They are also globally positioning themselves and are definitely working on very upgraded technologies. If someone wanted to do it on the cloud, they have a lot of flexibility because they upgrade themselves according to the current needs. It definitely comes with a lot of features and that's the reason why it's costly.

The licensing cost should be approximately one million dollars. It's about four to five times that of other vendors.

Take a look at your budget first and then proceed with this solution.

On a scale from one to ten, I give Informatica MDM a nine.

We are currently working on a project with the Oracle Fusion system, so we have multiple use cases and often need to pool data in different source systems. In the project, we have multiple sources and target systems. Based on the requirements, clients, and what they propose, we need to make decisions or check the technical feasibility of whether it is possible to complete the integration.

Product-wise, compared to other on-premise tools, Informatica Cloud Data Integration can be deployed on-premises and cloud. So when we were working on-premises, there were a lot of challenges with the hardware. For example, there were memory space issues, but once we switched to cloud, there were no more issues. 

There are challenges when we use Cloud Application Integration (CAI). We want add-ons when we complete data integration and merge images. The current features are a bit complicated, and we need to write big scripts and test.

We have been using this solution for more than six years. We are using a cloud version and the most recent version, 10.4. We have also used versions 8.6, 9 and 10, and we have observed that there isn't that much of a difference between versions, just additional features added. We do not have private or public cloud for Informatica Cloud Data Integration, just cloud.

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. We have more than 20 people using this solution.

We hardly raise an SR for this solution. But, whenever we require technical support, we do not get a satisfactory response. This is because their knowledge base may not be developed.

We used this same tool but on-premises in the past. We have also worked with AWS Snowflake, an ELT tool similar to Informatica Cloud Data Integration but with a different architectural approach. If we had to rank them, Informatica Cloud Data Integration would be the best, followed by Snowflake, then AWS.

Informatica Cloud Data Integration has some advantages over the others. It has a more UI-based tool, and the scripting is good. AWS also has an ETL tool called Glue, but it does not have everything we need to write in a script. We still need to write a script if we want to perform a small task. AWS is also challenging to teach. Informatica Cloud Data Integration and Snowflake are easier to use.

The initial setup is easier for cloud compared to on-premises. Deployment does not take much time and takes about 20 to 30 minutes.

The pricing of Informatica Cloud Data Integration and other solutions are almost the same but with slight differences. It differs from project to project, their use case, source and target. Unfortunately, I do not have information on precise licensing costs.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten. Regarding advice, it is a great solution, but users should understand their source and target system. For example, we also deal with Oracle Fusion, and it's a bit challenging to push data because Oracle has multiple models, financial supply chain and HR. Hence, it is difficult for a developer. Therefore, it is difficult to push data.

They should decide whether they are comfortable using Informatica Cloud Data Integration as their middleware tool or whether they want to use Oracle or OCI. OCI is a different middleware tool owned by Oracle.

Regarding additional features in the next release, Informatica Cloud Data Integration doesn't have image merging transformation or capability. We can do it without the solution, but it is a lengthy process. So, it would be helpful if they added the transformation to play with images and deal with invoices and financial data. We sometimes need to add 200 out of 800 invoices, and it's a bit challenging without the additional features.

We essentially use Informatica Axon to set up a data governance framework for a corporation, usually a medium-sized or large organization.

The dictionary, the search, and the ratings are without a doubt the most beneficial components of this solution. 

Socializing data governance is one of the examples, but I'm not sure what the others were. For instance, if you locate a specific data attribute, you can grade its accuracy by assigning it a star rating between 0 and 5. 

When someone else conducts a search, they might discover whether employees at the company believe the data to be of high quality.

In terms of additional features, I believe it is quite rich. As I previously stated, it is a fairly mature product.

The main issue probably has nothing to do with end users, but installation can definitely be simplified. Also, I believe that this is something that they are already working on it, but it needs to be provided as a service. 

The Microsoft version, Purview, is now available as a cloud service, it must be provided as a service rather than just installation. You do not need to go through the installation, you literally create an account in five minutes. That is something they need to do. I believe that it is already something they are on working on, but I don't believe it has yet been released.

Over the past year, I have definitely used Informatica Axon.

I have worked with Informatica Axon for two years.

We are always working with the latest version.

Informatica Axon is a stable product.

It's a fairly mature product. For many years, it has been the market leader.

Informatica Axon is a scalable solution.

The smallest organization would have 500 users.

Any of the multinational corporations could be the largest. It's quite pricey. 

It is commonly used by large multinational corporations.

It has two or three user interfaces, one for everyone in the organization, one for specific data analysts, and one for IT technical staff.

Like many organizations, technical support responds quickly at times. It can take some time. It's about average, in my opinion. I wouldn't say it's particularly good or bad. It's average.

I would rate the technical support a three and a half out of five.

Neutral

I am just really familiar with Azure DevOps as a deployment technology.

Some of the Azure services, such as Database and Purview, and Informatica tools, such as Axon, and Data Governance, are among the things I am familiar with.

Informatica Professional Services should absolutely perform the installation due to its complexity. Additionally, training is required for end-client configuration. It is not something you can pick up and configure immediately.

Although there is no cloud version of it yet, it can be deployed in the cloud as a virtual machine, or VM.

Axon itself, you normally allow anywhere between five and ten days to conduct the installation configuration together, and that's not elapsed time. It normally takes a week to two weeks to install and configure an initial setup. This is elapsed time, not necessarily man hours. You will always need additional configuration to be done. Although the actual installation and configuration might be completed in a few weeks, getting it ready for use by the organization might take six months.

We do not have a technical team. I was the person who deployed this solution.

It was a challenge, but I did it for the POC.

Informatica Professional Services was consulted when it came time for the client's actual installation.

Axon can typically be present; the technical installation only requires one person, and a second data specialist is typically required for configuration. Normally two. Additional technical setup and data configuration are required.

It is definitely high if used properly, but many organizations spend all of the money and then fail to use it to its full potential. It is unquestionably a good investment if used properly.

It depends on how the client uses it.

Pricing is determined by the number of licensed users as well as the number of Core CPUs. 

You can imagine how expensive it would be for a company with 10,000 users, but it all depends on how many analyst user licenses they require. 

I believe there is a flat fee for the end user. 

It is not expensive, but individual licenses are required for technical users, data analysts, data stewards, and the data governance team, which can add up if you have a large number of them.

Different clients may have different licensing costs, but it is based on a yearly paid license. It is renewed every year. There is an initial licensing fee as well as an annual renewal fee.

They are very expensive, and they charge a lot because they know they are number one. I would rate them a five out of five. Five being the most expensive.

I would definitely recommend it. If they can afford it. I strongly advise them to use it. But, before diving into Axon or any of the other governance tools, make sure they understand their data landscape thoroughly because the tool will not help them with that. They will fail if they do not have good data practices in place.

I'm a freelancer, but the consultancy I went through is also independent, but they do have a partner relationship with Informatica, as they do with many vendors.

I would rate Informatica Axon a nine out of ten.