Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Apache Hadoop vs IBM Netezza Performance Server comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
6.5
Apache Hadoop offers cost-effective storage and processing, with varying returns based on analytics sophistication and workload optimization.
Sentiment score
7.1
IBM Netezza Performance Server boosts business performance and ROI with faster queries, cost-saving compression, and platform integration.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.5
Apache Hadoop's support varies, with high satisfaction from vendor packages, responsive teams, and helpful documentation and community.
Sentiment score
6.4
IBM Netezza's support receives varied ratings, praised for quick deliveries but critiqued for inconsistent response times and support quality.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.6
Apache Hadoop offers scalable data management for large-scale deployments, efficiently supports diverse users and adapts across industries.
Sentiment score
6.3
Users have mixed scalability experiences with IBM Netezza, citing limitations and suggesting cloud solutions for improved scalability.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.4
Apache Hadoop is stable, especially newer versions, with occasional issues in setup, memory, and online data ingestion.
Sentiment score
7.8
IBM Netezza Performance Server is generally stable, with rare issues resolved quickly, relying on solid queries and architecture understanding.
 

Room For Improvement

Apache Hadoop requires enhanced compatibility, improved usability, real-time processing, better security, modern interfaces, and cost-effective solutions to boost adoption.
IBM Netezza Performance Server struggles with scalability, real-time integration, interface limitations, and requires improvements in concurrency and cloud capabilities.
 

Setup Cost

Apache Hadoop is cost-effective for large-scale deployments, but smaller enterprises face higher expenses despite potential cloud cost savings.
IBM Netezza pricing varies; seen as cost-effective for long-term use but expensive for high performance and proprietary tech.
 

Valuable Features

Apache Hadoop offers cost-efficient, scalable data processing with HDFS, supporting large datasets and seamless integration with tools like Spark.
IBM Netezza Performance Server offers fast, scalable data analytics with easy migration, optimized queries, and integrated hardware for reliability.
 

Categories and Ranking

Apache Hadoop
Ranking in Data Warehouse
6th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
IBM Netezza Performance Server
Ranking in Data Warehouse
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
33
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Data Warehouse category, the mindshare of Apache Hadoop is 5.2%, down from 6.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Netezza Performance Server is 4.3%, up from 3.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Data Warehouse
 

Featured Reviews

Sushil Arya - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides ease of integration with the IT workflow of a business
When working with Kafka, I saw that the data came in an incremental order. The incremental data processing part is still not very effective in Apache Hadoop. If the data is already there, it can be processed very effectively, especially if the data is coming in every second. If you want to know the location of some data every second, then such data is not processed effectively in Apache Hadoop. I can say that one of the features where improvements are required revolves around the licensing cost of the tool. If the tool can build some licensing structures in a pay-per-use manner, organizations can get the look and feel of Apache Hadoop. Apache Hadoop can offer a licensing structure of the product that can be seen as similar to how AWS operates. Apache Hadoop can look into the capability of processing incremental data. The tool's setup process can be a scope of improvement. Also, it is not very simple because while doing the setup, we need to do all the server settings, including port listing and firewall configurations. If we look at other products on the market, then they can be made simpler. There are certain shortcomings when it comes to the product's technical support part, making it an area where improvements are required. The time frame for the resolution is an area that needs to be improved. The overall communication part of the technical support team also needs improvement.
Shemal Gandhi - PeerSpot reviewer
A cost-effective data warehousing tool, but security features like TDE encryption are missing
The solution's maintenance is quite easy. One person is enough to maintain the solution. If you are using PostgreSQL as a database solution, then using IBM Netezza Performance Server is the logical choice since it is based on open-source Postgres. However, if you are using Oracle, data conversion can be tricky. So, in that case, you want to go ahead with Exadata. Overall, I rate IBM Netezza Performance Server a seven out of ten.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Warehouse solutions are best for your needs.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user232068 - PeerSpot reviewer
Aug 5, 2015
Netezza vs. Teradata
Original published at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/should-i-choose-net Two leading Massively Parallel Processing (MPP) architectures for Data Warehousing (DW) are IBM PureData System for Analytics (formerly Netezza) and Teradata. I thought talking about the similarities and differences…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
34%
Computer Software Company
10%
University
7%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
Educational Organization
74%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Computer Software Company
3%
Insurance Company
2%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Apache Hadoop?
It's primarily open source. You can handle huge data volumes and create your own views, workflows, and tables. I can also use it for real-time data streaming.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Apache Hadoop?
The product is open-source, but some associated licensing fees depend on the subscription level. While it might be free for students, organizations typically need to pay for their subscriptions. Th...
What needs improvement with Apache Hadoop?
Hadoop lacks OLAP capabilities. I recommend adding a Delta Lake feature to make the data compatible with ACID properties. Also, video and audio streaming import issues could be improved to ensure p...
What do you like most about IBM Netezza Performance Server?
IBM Netezza Performance Server is a cost-effective solution.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Netezza Performance Server?
The solution has a yearly licensing fee, and users have to pay extra for support.
What needs improvement with IBM Netezza Performance Server?
Oracle Exadata's security features, like TDE encryption, are missing in IBM Netezza Performance Server.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Netezza Performance Server, Netezza
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Amazon, Adobe, eBay, Facebook, Google, Hulu, IBM, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Spotify, AOL, Twitter, University of Maryland, Yahoo!, Cornell University Web Lab
Seattle Childrens Hospital, Carphone Warehouse, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Battelle, Start Today Co. Ltd., Kelley Blue Book, Trident Marketing, Elisa Corporation, Catalina Marketing, iBasis, Barnes & Noble, Qualcomm, MediaMath, Acxiom, iBasis, Foxwoods
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache Hadoop vs. IBM Netezza Performance Server and other solutions. Updated: November 2024.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.