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

Boomi iPaaS vs OpenText Trading Grid comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Boomi iPaaS
Ranking in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
29
Ranking in other categories
Business Orchestration and Automation Technologies (16th), AI Observability (30th)
OpenText Trading Grid
Ranking in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
22nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (13th), Cloud Data Integration (37th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) category, the mindshare of Boomi iPaaS is 8.3%, down from 8.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Trading Grid is 1.7%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Boomi iPaaS8.3%
OpenText Trading Grid1.7%
Other90.0%
Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
 

Featured Reviews

PN
Integration and Solution Architect/AI Engineer (Boomi and Workday) at Tech Bridger
Enables swift integration and automation for seamless order-to-cash processes
Boomi iPaaS offers different modules based on customer use cases, which I find valuable. The integrations and API management are particularly beneficial. The setup process is straightforward, and within three days, you can start working on Boomi iPaaS. It provides automation for everything from order to cash, which is thoroughly documented, tracked, and streamlined within Boomi iPaaS. Additionally, Boomi aids initiatives involving AI by allowing prompts to create integrations and automatically generating documentation.
VARUNKUMAR - PeerSpot reviewer
Mgr Value Chain Integration/EDI at a non-tech company with 10,001+ employees
Industry-leading, easy to implement, and has good mapping specification guidelines
The good thing about OpenText is that we have the mapping specification guideline available, which is not there in a solution like SEEBURGER. Whenever you want to take a decision to move away from OpenText, you have already documented your mapping and what your mapping looks like. So you go to the next provider, provide them with that mapping specification, and it'll be very easy for them to develop a new map instead of just taking the data - input data, output data - and then looking for how the data is getting transformed. So you have the mapping spec level which is a very good feature of OpenText, which we do not have in SEEBURGER. It's very hard to move from SEEBURGER. The solution is easy to implement. It's stable and reliable. They are the industry leaders in the integration space.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is a low-code and high-configuration platform, which is very valuable. Develop once and run anywhere is another useful feature. It also has connectors for more than 200 applications. It provides value for money. Our customers who have implemented this solution have a very high ROI."
"The connection configuration part and the drag-and-drop integration module are the most valuable features for me."
"Boomi iPaaS has significantly impacted our ROI. We have automated complete order-to-cash processes for multiple customers, saving over 90 million dollars."
"AtomSphere Integration will suit those looking for small automation and simple integrations."
"I have found the solution to be scalable."
"Very effective with its drag-and-drop feature."
"It's very user-friendly and designed to be easy to use for the end user."
"Boomi iPaaS makes it easy to organize ETL procedures that populate data warehouses."
"The solution is easy to implement."
 

Cons

"It is a costly platform. Its pricing could be better."
"Boomi iPaaS needs better source control. It is not as good as it could be in terms of managing versions and running what-if scenarios."
"They should create a custom connector option. With this, they could improve where the user can create the connector, based on their usage."
"Although Boomi iPaaS is top in the market, there might be room for improvement in the ETL aspect, which was recently integrated as another module. This aspect of Boomi iPaaS is not mature enough at the moment."
"There are still some areas that need improvement. For example, when updates are going on, the product becomes very slow."
"We would like to see more involvement between Dell Boomi and the end-users to help improve the customer experience."
"It crashes if we run high-volume 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 used MuleSoft in the past, which is more code-oriented and requires knowledge of Java. Transitioning to Boomi AtomSphere Integration took me a couple of months because of differences in terminology."
"Technical support needs to be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The licensing model of Dell Boomi is based on a ‘pay-per-use’ model."
"The cost of the solution is in the neighborhood of $20,000 annually. There are no costs above the standard licensing fee."
"The Platinum package is good for licensing, but I’m not sure about the cost and improvements."
"The pricing is not reasonable at all. It's very high."
"Boomi AtomSphere Integration is expensive. I rate its pricing an eight out of ten."
"AtomSphere Integration's pricing is competitive, and I would rate it seven out of ten."
"The pricing is a bit complex. While the entry fee may be lower than other solutions, it could be expensive depending on your usage."
"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"
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) solutions are best for your needs.
881,565 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Outsourcing Company
5%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Computer Software Company
8%
Retailer
8%
Wholesaler/Distributor
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise15
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?
The pricing for Boomi iPaaS is reasonable, costing around $6,000 per year. It is affordable even for small customers, like a salon with a couple of branches.
What needs improvement with Boomi AtomSphere Integration?
Boomi iPaaS needs better source control. It is not as good as it could be in terms of managing versions and running what-if scenarios.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Boomi
Trading Grid, GXS Trading Grid
 

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
Autoliv, Hella, Hutchinson, Michelin
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Salesforce, Informatica and others in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS). Updated: January 2026.
881,565 professionals have used our research since 2012.