Snowflake Reviews

I have used it in my previous company. It was just a SQL server data warehouse using reporting tools on top of it. It was an on-premise SQL server environment, and it was a typical data warehouse use case, but we wanted to do things faster and more cost-effectively. 

We used it to modernize our data warehouse. We didn't want to invest more in on-premise servers, and we were looking for a way to quickly get more data joined together. 

It had definitely improved the way our organization functioned at the time.

The overall ecosystem was easy to manage. Given that we weren't a very highly technical group, it was preferable to other things we looked at because it could do all of the cloud tunings. It can tune your data warehouse to an appropriate size for controlled billing, resume and sleep functions, and all such things. It was much more simple than doing native Azure or AWS development. 

It was stable, and their support was also perfect. It was also very easy to deploy. It was one of those rare times where they did exactly what they said they could do.

Their strategy is just to leverage what you've got and put Snowflake in the middle. It does work well with other tools. You have to buy a separate reporting tool and a separate data loading tool, whereas, in some platforms, these tools are baked in. In the long-term, they'll need to add more direct partnerships to the ecosystem so that it's not like adding on tools around Snowflake to make it work. They can also consider including Snowflake native reporting tools versus partnering with other reporting tools. It would kind of change where they sit in the market.

I have been using this solution for about three years.

We didn't run into anything. We had outages for a couple of seconds, but they were related to Amazon or AWS. They weren't related to Snowflake.

We scaled it a little bit. We didn't have a lot of data to scale, as a lot of companies do. We only had a couple of terabytes of data, which is insignificant for a cloud platform. 

The development team had three or four people getting data in. Then report people were also using the platform, but they didn't really have to know that it was Snowflake because they were going at it through a reporting tool. There were probably 30 or 40 people writing queries against our reporting tools, which were, in turn, using Snowflake.

They were really good. They were very responsive. There were never any issues with them. I would give them a ten out of ten.

I've used a lot of different data warehousing solutions at different companies.

It was easy as pie. In a couple of hours, it was up and running, and we were loading the data in. We had a fairly senior developer for that. He knew SQL server and queries very well. If you're used to developing in any type of SQL environment, you can jump in and use Snowflake really quickly.

It is per credit. It has a use-it-as-you-go model. We bought a chunk of 20,000 credits, and they were lasting us for at least a year. We didn't have the scale of data like a much larger company to consume more credits. For us, it was very inexpensive.

Their strategy is just to leverage what you've got and put Snowflake in the middle. It doesn't make it expensive because most of the organizations already have reporting tools. Now, if you were starting from scratch, it might be cheaper to go a different way.

If time to value is your primary goal, then I would recommend going for Snowflake over one of the other cloud providers.

I would rate Snowflake a ten out of ten. It is one of the few products in which everything demos well. It actually did everything they showed in the demos. We really couldn't find any gotchas in it. It kind of delivered as promised.

We use this solution for business intelligence. We have three persons in the team for developing the end product.

Snowflake is a database, and it is very good and useful. The most interesting part is that memory management is very good in Snowflake. For a business intelligence project, SQL Server is taking a lot of time for reporting services. There are a lot of calculations, and the reporting time is shown as two minutes, whereas Snowflake is taking just two seconds for the same reporting services.

For the Snowflake database, there should be some third-party features for the ETL. It would also be good to be able to use some kind of controls to get the data either from another database or a flat file.

Its price should be improved. It should be cheaper than Microsoft.

I have been using this solution for eight to ten months.

It is stable.

It is scalable.

Their technical support is good. I always get a response from them when I send an email to their support team.

It is very easy to install. After the installation, you just have to input some information into the Snowflake database. It is very easy.

Its price should be improved. It should be cheaper than Microsoft.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate Snowflake an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for the data warehouse.

The solution offers everything you'd find on Azure or AWS. It has a lot of industry-standard features and capabilities.

The product has excellent autoscaling. We can actually compute and scale-out at the same time without having to depend on other tools. You can do it on the fly, or within queries, etc.

The Visual Copy Cloning is definitely one feature that everyone looks forward to due to the fact that it gives you regular backups. 

The solution offers a very good time travel function that allows you to travel back in time to before your systems we corrupted. You can go back into your history and grab the last backup before corruption so that you regain almost everything you need. It gives you 90 days to fetch the data back if you need to. It's better than Azure options.

We've spoken with Snowflake about the fact that there are a few bare minimum requirements now these days for any data cloud, data lake, or platform. They've lacked a bit here, however, they're adopting some new measures that will be available in the next release, so that is sorted.

Snowflake is partners with only AWS as a cloud platform. However, in India, Microsoft has got a big subscription. The product needs to be able to adapt to Azure a bit more in order to meet the local market demands. 

It's difficult to know how to size everything correctly.

They should incorporate at least a basic ETL framework.

It's early days, however, I would put the solution at a seven out of ten. It needs a bit more time to mature. If I were to look at it strictly from a warehousing perspective, I'd rate it at an eight out of ten.

I've been using the solution for about ten months. I started using it originally when we started our partnership with the organization.

The one thing that seems to be unclear for Snowflake customers is the cluster sizing. No one seems ot know how to compute that.

For example, if I'm running a warehouse that is extra small, as per my query performance, if I see like if this query will run perfectly on the machine I will have. However, I don't know which machine to go for. There's no direct comparison between an extra small, or a small, or a medium warehouse. I never get to know, unless I run the case query on different sizes, which to go for. It's hard to say "Buy only this and go for that particular size". Sizing seems to be a bit of trial and error. If they had some sort of benchmarking around their cluster size, that would be helpful.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. We didn't have any issues with implementation. It's not too complex.

The pricing of the solution is fine. The storage is pretty cheap. They also offer a lot of discounts. The cost shouldn't really be a problem. 

That said, the agreement should be more of a subscription basis instead of asking for a commitment. For example, Microsoft tells your the price and allows you to subscribe to that, whereas, Snowflake wants you to commit to a certain amount of time before they really give you firm pricing. 

We're partners with Snowflake. We've been partners for just under a year at this point.

I'd definitely recommend the product. It's worked quite well for us. 

A new customer needs to understand, however, that they need a roadmap of at least five years when they are deciding on their data warehouse. They should compare costs and sizing to make sure they are getting the solution that makes sense for their current and future needs. 

The solution integrates well with other applications, and if you need it to integrate with existing applications, you still should check to make sure it's possible.

I wouldn't necessarily recommend Azure over Snowflake, as they aren't really a good comparison. Snowflake is more focused on data repositories and data warehouses. AWS does give you many options, however.

We have different data models established on Snowflake so our primary use case is to store data from different sources, such as Azure Data Factory, or Databricks. We use it to create the data coming from different sources, and then we store the data. In addition, we also have a reporting structure that we use. We are partners with Snowflake and I'm a lead data engineer. 

The most valuable feature of Snowflake is the Mbps they have established because it's quite a bit faster than any other data warehouse. The solution has different warehouse sizes in place, and we're able to switch through and choose what we want. It can be done in one or two seconds. In other data warehouses, it may take around one minute to set up a different configuration. In Snowflake, it can be done in, two or three seconds. And apart from that, the most important thing given that I have to analyze all this, is that it's very good with the time travel, it's a great feature. 

One thing which I believe Snowflake needs to improve is related to product activation queries. It's not possible to change the warehouse size while executing. It means, for example, that the query is sometimes activated on a larger surface even if I've switched to extra small, the grading in the background is running on extra large. The result is that I have to pay for extra large until the execution is complete. The cost implications can be quite large. There should be a system where they provide a prompt so you can know the current warehouse size.

It would also be helpful if they would simplify the process of using Snowpipe. The way it works now is quite complicated. There are certain steps that you have to follow which is fine but if they could simplify that process, it would be helpful. 

I've been using this solution for a year. 

I've only had one issue related to stability in the past year. 

It's a scalable solution, we have unlimited storage in Snowflake.

The technical support is quite good. We've used them when we've had to implement something and we need some guidance.

The amount of data which we are currently handling, cannot be handled yet in any other data warehouse, but we do have experience with Azure Data Warehouse. We don't have to manage anything with Snowflake, but with Azure we do. Snowflake is much faster, and I believe it is cheaper as well. They have developed it on top of their own system and integrated the concept.

The initial setup is straightforward. It doesn't require any hardware. It's just about getting the account access and having a browser. Everything is done by Snowflake. There is a set process that you need to follow. It is a really fast process, and it helps that the entire migration can be done within minutes. The solution is used on a daily basis by hundreds of people. 

It's pay-as-you-go with Snowflake. The cost is around $US 50 per DB. Terabyte is around $US 50 per month. There are no additional costs. They are divided into two steps to assist the computer power as well as the storage power. Computation cost is relative to the warehouse size. However long our warehouse is up and running, we are charged.

I would definitely recommend this solution. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

We use Snowflake for data warehousing.

We would like to see more security including more masking and more encryption at the database level.

We have been using Snowflake for three months.

Stability-wise, this product is good.

Snowflake is quite scalable. We have four people who are using it.

So far, technical support has been good.

The initial setup is very simple.

My advice for anybody who is implementing Snowflake is to start small, then prove out the value and you can grow.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Snowflake is used for very large data, such as in the case where tables might contain 600 to 700 million records.

It's ultra-fast at handling queries, which is what we find very convenient.

The pricing and licensing model is good.

Snowflake has support for stored procedures, but it is not that powerful. They have a lot of limitations. For example, it is really basic and there are limitations on subqueries.

The functions are not very good. Improving this would help to make sure data manipulation much easier. Right now, the inbuilt stored procedures and functions are all Java-based.

I Have been using SnowFlake for about five months.

We have approximately 10 people in the organization who are using Snowflake.

The technical support is very good.

We use Snowflake in conjunction with Matillion, which is another AWS-based ETL tool. It is being used as a bridge between our on-premises data and Snowflake. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. You simply log in and start using it.

When it comes to deployment, you can choose between the AWS and Azure cloud. We chose AWS.

It is easy to create an instance and you can do it yourself if you have an AWS account. Snowflake will give you the connection ID and other relevant details.

The pricing is flexible in that, for example, if I run a query and it is slow then I can increase the processing power while it is still running, and they charge more for the time. The cost is on a per-query basis.

If you're running with a base processor, called a warehouse, the query might cost 1.0 cents. But, if my query is slow and I want to increase the speed, the next level adds a little more cost to that.

On average, with the number of queries that we run, we pay approximately $200 USD per month.

Recently, we have been doing a review of Redshift. However, we finally decided to go with Snowflake.

My advice for anybody who is considering Snowflake is that it is a really good product, especially if you are having issues with Big Data. It is not good for a typical OLTP environment, such as a small table.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I work as a data scientist and our primary use of Snowflake is for machine learning.

Recently, we were trying to extract data to determine the best configuration settings for one of our products.

As it is SQL-like, it is easy to write queries.

The querying speed is fast.

We would like to have an on-premises deployment option that has the same features, including scalability.

I have been working with Snowflake for six or seven months.

From what I have seen and heard, I think that Snowflake is pretty stable. I haven't faced any such problems, myself. I am not aware of the entirety of the lifecycle, but I haven't heard any complaints.

My impression is that this product is pretty scalable.

I have not been in contact with technical support, although my team has been and they are okay with it. My impression is that they are good.

The pricing for Snowflake is competitive.

My advice for anybody who is considering implementing Snowflake is that from a user's standpoint, it is a good product. Having a database in a cloud setup means that you don't have to scale and it has got many features already included.

For our use case, we found this Snowflake was good enough and did not need any enhancements. I recommend using it.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We primarily use the solution in order to have the daily transactions of trades. It's to manipulate and find out the benchmark of every broker and institutional manager.

The solution's most valuable aspect is the ability to process the bulk amount of data and try to clone the database. We try to clone the production database. Instead of syncing the whole database, we can just clone it up and start working on it. Basically, the cloning and the database are very user-friendly.

The solution is very stable.

Right now, Snowflake doesn't have any analytical functions, especially in comparison to Oracle and other databases. The analytical performance needs to improve. It would be ideal if Snowflake was able to use the analytical functions, and what we have in the relational database. That would be really helpful. 

They don't have any SLAs in place. It would be better if they did.

I've been working with the solution for two years now. The company, however, has been using it for three years at this point.

The solution is quite stable. It's reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. There aren't bugs or glitches.

The solution is definitely scalable. We're able to add nodes to grow it out when we need to. If an organization needs to expand the solution, they can do so easily. We find it to be very reliable.

There are about 300 people using the solution at this time. We don't plan on increasing usage at this time.

Technical support is very, very good. It's a responsive and knowledgable team. We're quite satisfied with the level of service we receive.

That said, Snowflake technical support doesn't have any SLAs. If they had a small amount of SLAs, then it would be helpful for us to clear or solve any production issues, etc. that we may run into.

We need about 50-60 people to maintain the solution.

Snowflake's pricing is a bit higher than other competitors.

We were looking at Amazon Redshift previously. However, we decided that Snowflake was more reliable and scalable.

We're a customer. We don't have a business relationship with the solution.

Users considering adding the solution should understand that Snowflake can be used only for transactional processing, not for analytical processing. If they want to go for transaction processing, they can go for Snowflake and if they want to go for analytical processing, they should look at or go for an Oracle database.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.