No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Informatica Intelligent Data Management Cloud (IDMC) vs Riversand MDMCenter 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

Informatica Intelligent Dat...
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
214
Ranking in other categories
Data Integration (1st), Data Quality (1st), Business Process Management (BPM) (8th), Business-to-Business Middleware (2nd), API Management (5th), Cloud Data Integration (2nd), Data Governance (3rd), Test Data Management (3rd), Cloud Master Data Management (MDM) (1st), Data Management Platforms (DMP) (2nd), Data Masking (2nd), Metadata Management (2nd), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (4th), Test Data Management Services (3rd), Product Information Management (PIM) (1st), Data Observability (1st), AI Data Analysis (1st)
Riversand MDMCenter
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Master Data Management (MDM) Software (10th)
 

Featured Reviews

Divya-Raj - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Consultant cum Assistant Manager & Offshore Lead at Deloitte
Handles large data volumes effectively and offers competitive pricing
There is a lot of improvement required, as we still face some cache issues most of the time, which is a challenge that we expect to see resolved in the future. Additionally, there is some limitation when we are working with a tool, especially regarding In and Out parameters, and I feel that this aspect should be improved going ahead. We face issues with the API side, as Cloud Application Integration cannot handle large volumes; according to the API page, there is a limitation of 500 records or 500 MB. The AI integrated into the Informatica Intelligent Cloud Services solution is called Application Integration, where we still face challenges when dealing with huge volumes, as previously explained.
CR
Architect at Wipro
A stable solution with multiple workflow capabilities, but lightweight DAM capabilities and lacking a good search and match feature
The solution does not have a good match and search capability. It only has a basic, exact match search. Any upgrades to the search and match capability, seeing non-exact or fuzzy matches for example, would be good improvements. Also, the DAM solution provided by Riversand is comparatively lightweight, so you are still dependent on a third-party DAM solution provider, like Team Seven, to make it a complete solution. Some improvement in the DAM area would be a major help. From a data quality perspective, there are not a lot of data quality rules that can be enabled. Also, there is no specific data quality engine available, unlike Informatica, where you have the option of leveraging the PIM tool for data quality capabilities. Plus, you can leverage apps out of IDQ and make them available in PIM. If these kinds of options were made available in Riversand, they would definitely be welcome features.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution is applicable for both technical and business users."
"It is quite useful and flexible compared to other vendors in terms of cost of implementation and use case."
"It's one of the best tools in its class."
"The serverless capability and the packaging application of the solution are valuable."
"You can extract and transfer your data as you wish it to be consumed later."
"We had a bad experience before Informatica Cloud Data Quality, we started a data analytics project that took more than three months of wasted time because we couldn't use the data to create the optimization model."
"We have a lot of integrations, and it's very easy to create integrations. They have a lot of connectors."
"Informatica Intelligent Cloud Services allows us to manage the entire data lifecycle in the insurance domain, supporting microservices architecture and leveraging AI and machine learning for data discovery, quality, and integration."
"I like their matching feature, and the survivorship rules are very strong. I also like their out-of-box reports, data quality dashboards, and more. Those are also very handy and helpful. Internally, I like the kind of configurations that we can create, validations, and enhancements. Those configurations are pretty straightforward and useful. It's a user-friendly tool that is very cool."
"This solution provides a good user interface and the ability to update large sets of products quickly, along with providing good off-the-shelf functionality."
"It's a stable solution. I have no complaints."
"I like their matching feature, and the survivorship rules are very strong; I also like their out-of-box reports, data quality dashboards, and more, which are very handy and helpful, and the configurations we can create, validations, and enhancements are pretty straightforward and useful, making it a user-friendly tool that is very cool."
"There are a lot of workflow-related capabilities in Riversand, such as packaging-related AI-based algorithms that automatically assign specific packaging for a given product within the workflow."
"Has a good user interface and the ability to update large sets of products quickly."
 

Cons

"It needs to be a little more intuitive but it’s really not bad."
"Performance issues can be looked at Improved release documentation is expected because I feel that the current release document doesn't give you the clear picture of what has been fixed and what has not been fixed from previous versions."
"Its look and feel needs improvement. It has a lousy look and feel."
"There's no direct way to connect to Amazon APIs from Informatica Cloud."
"Some capabilities from the cloud version are not included in the on-premises version."
"I have received feedback from certain teams and there is a steep learning curve to use this solution."
"Enhancements on the UI front, such as multiple templates and improved grid views, would be beneficial."
"There's definitely room for improvement in terms of user-friendliness. One example is that you can't search for jobs directly by file name. You can only search by job name. So, if you want to find a job that works with a specific file, you have to go through each job individually to find the right one. So, I'd like to see a faster search, one where I can search directly by file name."
"The technical support for partners is not so good. It takes a long time to get a response."
"Integration could be better. Riversand is majorly focusing on only the MDM hub part. They don't have their own integration platform. We have to rely on a third-party integration partner. They say this is the format, and it's the client's responsibility to bring the data into their required format. They have to have an integration partner and develop their integration capabilities. It's not so flexible to read any data format or system, for example, SAP. They don't have a connector."
"The solution does not have a good match and search capability."
"Integration could be better. Riversand is majorly focusing on only the MDM hub part."
"The ability to create bespoke workflows could be improved."
"The ability to create bespoke workflows could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Informatica Axon is a costly solution. I rate Informatica Axon a four out of ten for its pricing."
"You can purchase licenses for this solution at different intervals. For example, annually or every three years. They recently changed their terms for licensing and now it is more flexible."
"We have licenses, and we are provided with certain particular services in the solution."
"It is cost effective and an easily accessible tool."
"It is an expensive solution. I would say it is the most expensive solution in the market."
"Pricing is determined by the number of licensed users as well as the number of Core CPUs."
"The price is neither too high nor too low."
"I rate the product's pricing a five on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive."
"Riversand MDMCenter isn't expensive. I believe their price is in the mid-range."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
892,776 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Retailer
7%
Computer Software Company
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business51
Midsize Enterprise27
Large Enterprise153
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

How does Azure Data Factory compare with Informatica Cloud Data Integration?
Azure Data Factory is a solid product offering many transformation functions; It has pre-load and post-load transformations, allowing users to apply transformations either in code by using Power Q...
Which Informatica product would you choose - PowerCenter or Cloud Data Integration?
Complex transformations can easily be achieved using PowerCenter, which has all the features and tools to establish a real data governance strategy. Additionally, PowerCenter is able to manage huge...
What are the biggest benefits of using Informatica Cloud Data Integration?
When it comes to cloud data integration, this solution can provide you with multiple benefits, including: Overhead reduction by integrating data on any cloud in various ways Effective integration ...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

ActiveVOS, Active Endpoints, Address Verification, Persistent Data Masking
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

The Travel Company, Carbonite
Topco, PC Connection, Balsam Brands, Nivea, Eucerin, Tine, Schneider Electric, Miller, ExxonMobil, Baxter, ConocoPhillips, Cameron International, Chevron, Husky Energy, Saint-Gobain, Fingerhut
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), Informatica, Salesforce and others in Cloud Data Integration. Updated: May 2026.
892,776 professionals have used our research since 2012.