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
 

Categories and Ranking

Boomi iPaaS
Ranking in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
6th
Average Rating
7.8
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Trading Grid
Ranking in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
19th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (12th), Cloud Data Integration (32nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) category, the mindshare of Boomi iPaaS is 8.9%, up from 8.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Trading Grid is 1.3%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
 

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.
VARUNKUMAR - PeerSpot reviewer
Jun 19, 2022
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

"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring part to debug certain issues and find problems."
"Low-code development is the most valuable feature."
"The Salesforce and NetSuite Application specific “connectors” provide a layer of abstraction on top of the SOAP-based APIs to streamline integration development."
"This is a fairly easy-to-use tool for integration which can be self-taught for those with a bit of a technical background."
"We work on the flow between systems and the most valuable features for that purpose are the mapping of data, interface mapping, and data integration."
"The connection configuration part and the drag-and-drop integration module are the most valuable features for me."
"This solution has a user-friendly interface and very good documentation with solutions that helped us in working with the tool efficiently."
"I have found the solution to be scalable."
"The solution is easy to implement."
 

Cons

"Documentation could be improved."
"They should create a custom connector option. With this, they could improve where the user can create the connector, based on their usage."
"There are very few string handling functions and few mathematical functions are available."
"It is a costly platform. Its pricing could be better."
"We would like to see more involvement between Dell Boomi and the end-users to help improve the customer experience."
"In day-to-day operations, tracking transactions is a major challenge. It takes hours to track a single transaction. It is not a straightforward process."
"Have to create some of our own pre-built connectors."
"The high price of the solution is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Technical support needs to be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the product's price an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive."
"The pricing is not reasonable at all. It's very high."
"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"
"The licensing model of Dell Boomi is based on a ‘pay-per-use’ model."
"There could be an easy-to-understand licensing model."
"They do not charge by the number of people using the software (client-server model), but rather they charge based on the number of connections used. This makes it very cost effective."
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%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Retailer
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
 

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
Trading Grid, GXS Trading Grid
 

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
Autoliv, Hella, Hutchinson, Michelin
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.