Teradata Reviews

I use the solution in my company for reporting.

The tool's flexibility and capacity for expansion are areas of concern where improvements are required.

I have been using Teradata for two years. My company is an end user of the product.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

In our company, when it comes to Teradata, we have an appliance in place, and we plan to upgrade to another appliance that offers more capacity.

I rate the product's scalability to be below average.

Around 100 people in my company use the tool.

The tool is used daily in my company.

It is difficult to get someone with technical expertise involved with the solution's technical support team. I rate the technical support a four out of ten.

Neutral

I only have experience with Teradata.

I rate the product's initial setup phase as above average on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises version.

For installation, my company only used the services offered by Teradata.

I rate the product price a nine on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive.

My company has evaluated other options against Teradata, and I see that it has been used in our company for the past four years.

The tool did enhance our company's data warehousing and analytics capabilities.

Teradata was crucial for our company's data analysis, especially for every campaign we run, including the pricing, exercises, and analysis.

Teradata's feature, which had the most significant impact on our company's data management, revolves around the analytics feature it offers.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

Our use cases were related to banks and other financial institutions. 

The tool's most valuable feature is the warehousing model. 

Azure Synapse SQL has evolved from a solely dedicated support tool to a data lake. It can store data from multiple systems, not just traditional database management systems. On the other hand, Teradata has limitations in loading flat files or unstructured data directly into its warehouse. In Azure Synapse SQL, we can implement machine learning using Python scripts. Additionally, Azure Synapse SQL offers advanced analytical capabilities compared to Teradata. Teradata is also expensive. 

I have been using the product for three to four years.

I'm working in a very stable environment with Teradata. We have a lot of flexibility, especially in terms of automation.

I haven't contacted the tool's support yet. 

I have used Azure Synapse SQL. Regarding Teradata, I've only explored it for proof of concept purposes. As a gold partner of Microsoft, we recommend Azure Synapse SQL. However, Teradata seems to be the preferred option when handling large transactions over Azure Synapse SQL. While I haven't explored Teradata extensively, based on colleague feedback, it's considered ideal for financial transactions involving millions to billions of records per day. On the other hand, Azure Synapse SQL is more suited for data warehousing and operational reporting.

The tool's deployment is complex. 

The tool costs about 30,000 euros a month, while Azure Synapse SQL only costs 10,000. 

We used Teradata for proof of concept purposes but eventually transitioned to Azure Synapse SQL for managing large data volumes. With Azure Synapse SQL, we could load nearly 130 million records daily from a single data source, and we had eight data sources. This data-loading process took only four hours to complete. It is also based on the .NET framework. 

If you're familiar with SQL, working with Teradata might be considered complex compared to Microsoft SQL or Oracle.

If you want a tool to handle financial transactions and generate simple dashboards, Teradata might be the faster option. However, if you also require machine learning, operational reporting, etc. I would recommend considering alternatives such as Azure Synapse SQL.

I rate the overall product a seven out of ten. 

We use Teradata IntelliFlex for data warehousing, which is a way of presenting data for faster retrieval.

The solution's banking model, called FSLDM (Financial Services Logical Data Model), is sophisticated and good.

The solution’s pricing, scalability, and technical support response time could be improved.

I have been using Teradata IntelliFlex for one year.

Teradata IntelliFlex is a stable solution.

Since the solution is limited to its hardware, it has issues and limitations about scalability. Around 100 users are extensively using the solution in our organization.

The solution's technical support team is supportive but takes two to three days to respond.

Teradata IntelliFlex comes with hardware that is already deployed and preconfigured.

You purchase, deliver, and install the hardware and software to deploy the solution. People from Teradata will configure the software for you, and it will be ready.

Teradata IntelliFlex provides a lot of value to our organization.

Users have to pay a yearly licensing fee for Teradata IntelliFlex, which is very expensive.

Before choosing Teradata IntelliFlex, we evaluated other options like SQL Server and Oracle. We chose Teradata IntelliFlex because of its core competitive advantage in terms of a readymade model for the financial sector.

All analytics and reporting in our organization are done through the solution. Two people are required to maintain and operate the solution. We need five data modelers to design and develop the solution.

I advise users not to get stuck with the solution since it's expensive. The change on this platform is also expensive since it has so many associations with other layers. Currently, the new architecture for the data is to eliminate its complexity because it's a complex solution.

Overall, I rate Teradata IntelliFlex a seven out of ten.

We use it as a staging database in our organization, serving as a repository for financial models.

The current operational approach needs improvement. In the past, relying on infrastructure data staging provided flexibility in collaborating with any database provider. However, transitioning to Informatica and integrating it with various data services proved beneficial for serving multiple clients. Despite its advantages, this approach incurred substantial costs in terms of hardware and technical expertise. To address this, there is a need to develop and offer free content and workshops, providing guidelines and technical knowledge for efficient data operation.

I have been working with it for seven years.

I would rate its stability capabilities eight out of ten.

I would rate its scalability abilities six out of ten. While it provides scalability, it is notably complicated.

We previously used IBM, but due to the market requirements, we switched to Teradata.

The initial setup was straightforward.

It takes a couple of hours to be completely deployed.

It comes at a notably high cost for what it offers. Apart from the standard licensing fees, there are supplementary costs associated with the licensing course. I would rate it one out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

Teradata Cloud Data Warehouse offers a more cost-effective cloud solution. However, the main challenge we encounter, especially in South Africa, is the limited bandwidth available for connecting to our cloud network. This is where the cost factor becomes significant, making it impractical to fully utilize the cloud due to the bandwidth constraints required for communication with the cloud. This limitation poses a major problem. While we can access certain features of cloud solutions from Teradata for free to evaluate them, it is not feasible for serving a large user base like two to three million people accessing the database. To accommodate such a user load, we would need a massive and robust pipeline connecting to the cloud.

The cloud is ten times better than physical hardware; it is more cost-effective and the upgrade process is ten times easier. Teradata Cloud options are also more affordable for anyone, especially for small companies. However, if our company expands significantly, it may become less affordable due to the costs associated with the necessary connection and bandwidth required to communicate with the servers.

South Africa must significantly improve its internet infrastructure to reduce its high costs. I believe South Africa is one of the most expensive countries in the world when it comes to obtaining high-speed internet connections. We need to establish different service level agreements with clients to ensure we have backup lines and redundancy. The crucial question we need to ask ourselves is, how reliable do we want our internet connection to be? In the case of using cloud services, it's essential to have another line as a backup in case the primary one fails. In our situation, having a backup line is definitely necessary, but it also adds to the expenses. For a major bank like ours, relying on a single connection to the cloud is not feasible; we must have a second line in place to ensure uninterrupted service in case of any issues with the primary line.

The cost of Teradata Cloud Data Warehouse has room for improvement.

I have been using Teradata Cloud Data Warehouse for a few years.

I don't think there is another system in the world as stable as Teradata. They have a redundant hardware setup with double components for everything. If one component fails, another one takes over. This redundancy extends to the data side as well. The system runs on multiple disks, so if one disk fails, the data is still available on another disk, and the replacement process is seamless thanks to hot-swappable components. We don't have to shut down the entire system to replace most parts in the Teradata system. We can simply slide out the faulty component and slide in a new one. Unlike old technologies that required powering down the entire system, Teradata's architecture allows for most operations to remain functional even during maintenance. However, in certain cases, depending on the architecture, we might need to power down the systems.

Teradata Cloud Data Warehouse is highly scalable. I believe that Teradata is more scalable than IBM. Teradata is ten times faster in processing data compared to IBM. When it comes to multi-processing, IBM loses out to Teradata. For example, if we want to store files and we're running five, and we have 20 disks, restoring a certain file will be slower with IBM compared to Teradata. Other solutions may restore that file on one disk and its mirror image, but with Teradata, it functions differently. It stores parts of the file on all the twenty disks, which is why it performs so fast. Teradata's ability to utilize all the disks in the configuration through multi-processing is the reason for its speed.

The technical support at Teradata is the best in the world. All the support engineers have university degrees, and Teradata has its own university where we can access all their courses and components available in the market. This includes other applications as well. All of these resources can be found at Teradata University. About 80 percent of the courses can be completed remotely, but there are certain aspects that require in-person attendance in a classroom setting.

To access Teradata University and its resources, being a client is necessary, and certain subscriptions must be purchased based on our specific needs and inquiries, particularly regarding the Database Administrator side. The information we can access depends on the licenses we acquire with the system.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward, but we may struggle the first couple of times; however, it is very user-friendly. Anybody can download the solution and play with it. Moreover, there is a place where we can ask for help if we encounter problems during the installation of Teradata Cloud. This is one of the reasons why Teradata is very popular, as there are always people available to assist us.

The time required to set up a cloud depends on its size. For a small Teradata Cloud, it usually takes around 45 minutes to complete the setup process.

The most important part is to do our planning and understand the client's requirements before deploying the solution. There is no point in deploying a cloud solution for a client without knowing their specific requirements. Therefore, I believe that the planning phase is the most crucial aspect. Once we have a clear understanding of what the client wants, we can proceed with setting up Teradata Cloud Data Warehouse for them.

The implementation is done in-house by our solution architects.

Teradata used to be expensive, but they have been lowering their prices. The cost is becoming more comparable to other models, like IBM. I would rate the price a seven out of ten, with ten being the highest.

I rate Teradata Cloud Data Warehouse ten out of ten.

Teradata Cloud Data Warehouse is plug-and-play, much like Microsoft. It is a user-friendly and efficient product, and users will be pleased with its speed. 

We use Teradata to build data warehouses for our customers.

The ability to handle machine data parallel processing is the most valuable feature of Teradata. The fundamental design concept involves moving from Oracle's design process to achieving the best possible design. This represents a departure from traditional approaches and is an innovative idea introduced by Teradata in the industry. Many newer databases, such as Snowflake and Vertica, have adopted similar architectures.

Teradata can improve the way it handles big data and unstructured data.

I have been using Teradata for 16 years.

I give the stability of Teradata a ten out of ten.

I give the scalability of Teradata an eight out of ten.

The technical support is good and responsive.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. The deployment time is contingent upon the scale of the migration and moving from a lower to a higher environment is not a challenging task. The time it takes to migrate the data is also dependent on the source database and what ETL tool we are using. Around two to three engineers and one architect are required for the deployment.

We implement the solution for our clients.

Snowflake is built on top of the Teradata architecture but it has more flexibility.

I give Teradata an eight out of ten.

For enterprise-level organizations, Teradata is a suitable option.

We use Teradata as our company's data warehouse engine to process tons of data since we are the Central Bank of Columbia, where we use that for statistics to study several areas of banking. Our main database, data warehousing, data mining, and back office statistics are done with the help of Teradata. We heavily use Oracle as our transactional database, but we use Teradata for all other purposes.

I am not exactly the person doing the programming and exploring the product's different features. To get information on the product's features, I will have to contact some engineers in charge of programming. The most valuable feature of the product is the ability of the product to process huge amounts of data without creating conflicts in the queries. The way the database and IntelliFlex are designed, you can process several queries from different applications simultaneously, and they don't conflict with each other. I mean, I think that's the reason why we find improvements in our query time. The way the queries are internally in IntelliFlex process makes them less complicated. In other databases, when you start a query, the dataset is put on hold for a while, so all the queries have to wait for the first query to finish. IntelliFlex and Teradata are designed to avoid such an issue because I am unsure. I feel Teradata IntelliFlex can function in the aforementioned manner since they manage smaller sets of data, because of which there are no conflict queries between one and the other.

I don't have the exact details of the improvement needed in the performance of Teradata IntelliFlex because I work with the infrastructure department. The infrastructure department is in charge of getting infrastructure for the system to work, but before having Teradata, the data processing was taking a lot longer than it is now. We got into Teradata because we needed fast processing of huge amounts of data since, in the past, we were trying to achieve it with Oracle databases, and it wasn't good enough. In the last two years, the processing times have reduced by a third or a fourth of the time without causing any problems because of the efficiency of the Teradata engine.

The only issue our company has with Teradata IntelliFlex is that it is not cost-effective because of the way the product has been designed. We have Teradata IntelliFlex on-premises because we pay for a lot of muscle that we are not using. The problem we're seeing is that when we try to move into Teradata IntelliFlex's cloud services, we notice that Teradata doesn't have a flexible price structure to allow you to use a fraction of IntelliFlex's extension and charge just for the use of the solution. We receive messages from Teradata asking us to pay for the services we use on-premises, while in reality we use less than 30 percent of the machine's capacity.

There is something that is not working in favor of the business models for IntelliFlex when you plan to move to the cloud.

I have been using Teradata IntelliFlex for two years. Our company plans to renew the solution's latest version, but the hardware is around two years old.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten. In the two years we have been using the platform, we have had only one or two issues that got the service out for a few hours.

The product's scalability is great. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

I rate the technical support a nine to ten out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward. Before IntelliFlex, we were using Teradata's 2700 and 2800 appliances. We were moving from a Teradata appliance to a new Teradata appliance, and during that process, we were able to move all the data in between three to six months without a problem, keeping both platforms working until we moved into IntelliFlex. The setup phase was a good process.

The solution is deployed on-premises. We are planning to move to the cloud in the future.

We feel that we are given the services from Teradata IntelliFlex for what we are paying. We are the Central Bank of Colombia, a non-profit organization, making it difficult for us to say that because of IntelliFlex, our earnings have increased. My institution doesn't aim for any earnings. We have been able to provide much better services to all of our customers, including all the financial institutions in our country, because of which I can say there has been a return on investment using Teradata IntelliFlex. A return on investment is possible based on the improvements in our service to our customers.

Our company is just looking to see if there is another product other than Teradata IntelliFlex that we can use in the future, not because we are not happy with the product. The reviews on Teradata IntelliFlex point out that it is a very solid and efficient solution, but we are slightly worried about the cost.

The price and the pricing structure should be improved.

Two years ago, we had plans to move into the cloud since we were doing so with all the products we have in our company to avoid having our own data centers. When we tried to move Teradata IntelliFlex to the cloud this year, we noticed that at this point in time, we might have to stay on-premises for a couple of years or until Teradata provides us with a better price structure. Owing to the aforementioned reasons, we have been considering moving to another more flexible platform and more price convenient for our company.

We are happy with the services provided by Teradata IntelliFlex.

At this point, it's worth looking at other alternatives other than Teradata IntelliFlex, depending on the kind of use you plan to do with the platform. There are certain areas of our company where we have noticed that we could get the same benefits from another platform, especially from the ones which are not pricey. If you really want to take advantage of the wonderful performance and speed that Teradata provides, then you need to choose it. But if you don't need the level of performance offered by Teradata, you can look for other alternatives. 

Overall, I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

We use it primarily as a dedicated platform for aggregating structured data, essentially serving as our structured data repository or data warehouse.

Their extensive experience in data warehousing, the platform's performance, and their strong reputation in the market are the most valuable.

One issue we've identified is that its performance varies across different on-premises setups and doesn't consistently meet our standards. This limitation necessitates the purchase of Teradata's proprietary hardware to ensure the desired level of performance. The capability to implement it with comparable performance across various private cloud environments, ensuring adaptability to different infrastructure setups would be beneficial.

I have been using it for four years.

The stability is excellent, and I would rate it nine out of ten.

The challenge lies in the necessity to purchase additional hardware for scaling, so I would lean towards a rating of around four out of ten for the overall experience.

The technical support is satisfactory; I would rate it seven out of ten.

Neutral

I would rate the initial setup six out of ten when it comes to complexity.

I would rate the return on investment eight out of ten.

The cost is significantly high. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it seven out of ten.