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

Boomi iPaaS vs Devart Skyvia comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Boomi iPaaS
Average Rating
7.8
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (6th)
Devart Skyvia
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Data Integration (31st)
 

Mindshare comparison

Boomi iPaaS and Devart Skyvia aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Boomi iPaaS is designed for Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) and holds a mindshare of 8.9%, up 8.4% compared to last year.
Devart Skyvia, on the other hand, focuses on Cloud Data Integration, holds 0.2% mindshare, up 0.2% since last year.
Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
Cloud Data Integration
 

Featured Reviews

Peter Pries - PeerSpot reviewer
Oct 10, 2023
A highly scalable and reasonably stable tool that needs to improve on its prices
In my company, we use many video conferencing tools. I have seen that in video conferencing tools, the counterparts are very different. I have experience with Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Tencent Meeting. I was not deeply involved in Boomi AtomSphere Integration since it was already up and running when I joined my company's project. I could look back in the past to find out the product's history, and that is the most I can do. I know what the product is used for, but I can't go too much into the details. Whether I would recommend the product or not actually depends on what a customer wants to achieve with the solution while also considering factors like the experience of the integration team and the kind of support a customer has in their company. It is not just about the technology but also the skills of a company or the partners with whom a company has relations. Compared to Boomi AtomSphere Integration, there are easier products around, like MuleSoft or Jitterbit. I see MuleSoft or Jitterbit evolving since they have established a lot of integrations, depending on the markets and other things. From my perspective, Jitterbit was easier to operate and set up, while MuleSoft tried to simplify their product a lot when compared to Boomi AtomSphere Integration. MuleSoft started off as a very complex product, but now it's getting easier and easier, and MuleSoft now has a lite version. I didn't hear anything about Boomi AtomSphere Integration, especially in terms of major product improvements, which I know about. I rate the overall tool a six out of ten.
RH
Jul 5, 2017
The product works, is simple to use, and is reliable.
Error handling. This has caused me many problems in the past. When an error occurs, the event on the connection that is called does not seem to behave as documented. If I attempt a retry or opt not to display an error dialog, it does it anyway. In all fairness, I have never reported this. I think it is more important that a unique error code is passed to the error event that identifies a uniform type of error that occurred, such as ecDisconnect, eoInvalidField. It is very hard to find what any of the error codes currently passed actually mean. A list would be great for each database engine. Trying to catch an exception without displaying the UniDAC error message is impossible, no matter how you modify the parameters in the OnError of the TUniConnection object. I have already implemented the following things myself. They are suggestions rather than specific requests. Copy Datasets: This contains an abundance of redundant options. I think that a facility to copy one dataset to another in a single call would be handy. Redundancy: I am currently working on this. I have extended the TUniConnection to have an additional property called FallbackConnection. If the TUniConnection goes offline, the connection attempts to connect the FallbackConnection. If successful, it then sets the Connection properties of all live UniDatasets in the app to the FallbackConnection and re-opens them if necessary. The extended TUniConnection holds a list of datasets that were created. Each dataset is responsible for registering itself with the connection. This is a highly specific feature. It supports an offline mode that is found in mission critical/point of sale solutions. I have never seen it implement before in any DACs, but I think it is a really unique feature with a big impact. Dataset to JSON/XML: A ToSql function on a dataset that creates a full SQL Text statement with all parameters converted to text (excluding blobs) and included in the returned string. Extended TUniScript:- TMyUniScript allows me to add lines of text to a script using the normal dataset functions, Script.Append, Script.FieldByName(‘xxx’).AsString := ‘yyy’, Script.AddToScript and finally Script.Post, then Script.Commit. The AddToScript builds the SQL text statement and appends it to the script using #e above. Record Size Calculation. It would be great if UniDac could estimate the size of a particular record from a query or table. This could be used to automatically set the packet fetch/request count based on the size of the Ethernet packets on the local area network. This I believe would increase performance and reduce network traffic for returning larger datasets. I am aware that this would also be a unique feature to UniDac but would gain a massive performance enhancement. I would suggest setting the packet size on the TUniConnection which would effect all linked datasets.

Quotes from Members

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

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There could be an easy-to-understand licensing model."
"I rate the product's price an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive."
"Approximately 20k annually."
"The Platinum package is good for licensing, but I’m not sure about the cost and improvements."
"When it comes to pricing, it's not so much about being less expensive as it is about how they don't tie to the hardware on the underlined VMware that you run on, as other vendors do"
"Boomi AtomSphere Integration is a relatively cheap and cost-effective product compared to other products like SAP or Oracle."
"The pricing is not reasonable at all. It's very high."
"This solution is very economical (based on the connections)."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) solutions are best for your needs.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Government
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Boomi AtomSphere Integration?
The tool's most valuable features I've found are related to debugging and testing. It makes it easy to track execution, documents, and process history. This functionality is particularly useful for...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Boomi AtomSphere Integration?
Boomi AtomSphere Integration is a relatively cheap and cost-effective product compared to other products like SAP or Oracle. I don't know the exact price of the product.
What needs improvement with Boomi AtomSphere Integration?
In my experience, I haven't encountered any major issues with the tool. However, there could be a learning curve for new users, especially depending on which tool you're using. For example, I've us...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Boomi
Skyvia
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

DocuSign Inc., Innotas, Certent, Renesas Electronics America (REA), Kelly-Moore Paints, Mindjet, City of McKinney, Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers (RBA), Daylight Transport, A10 Networks
Boeing, Sony, Honda, Oracle, BMW, Samsung
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Salesforce, Oracle and others in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS). Updated: October 2024.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.