Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) Reviews

I like that Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) has a straightforward setup and offers good technical support.

Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) is already good as a solution. Still, it needs some editing of its preview package, or if the package is upgraded, that will make Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) even better.

I've been using Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) for more than seven years.

Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) is a stable solution.

Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) is a scalable solution.

The technical support for Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) is good. Here in Turkey, you can directly contact support, and the support team is knowledgeable about the solution.

The Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) technical support team is a four for me on a scale of one to five.

The initial setup for Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) is straightforward.

The Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) pricing isn't expensive, but it's not cheap, so it's in the middle. I'd rate the pricing as three out of five.

We evaluated Informatica and Microsoft SSIS.

My advice to anyone looking into using Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) is that it's easy if you have experience with Oracle technologies. Still, if your experience is with other technologies, you may find Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) challenging.

I'd rate Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) as seven out of ten because it's not as user-friendly as Informatica. It's not as cheap as Microsoft SSIS, but it's an Oracle product, and Oracle is well-known, so that you can search for information about Oracle products on Google. You can find support for Oracle products, so Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) is a seven for me.

I'm an Oracle customer.

We had an opportunity to set up a data warehouse. We were doing a complex stack of Oracle. The customer was using Oracle as their backend database.

It can extract all day. It doesn't look after any particular database. It is not platform-dependent, and that's the main thing that makes it really useful.

It has good plug-ins.

The studio was quite useful.

It was a user-friendly product.

The product is stable. It's scalable. 

The price needs to be lowered. It's too expensive. 

There are a few other tools that can do what Oracle does. It's not necessarily the leader in the space. 

As far as what I have learned from other people, I've heard that the Oracle console is big and confusing. If it was less complex, it would be easier to customize.

I've used the solution for two or three projects. I last used it less than a year ago.

This is a very, very stable product. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution can scale well.

I haven't created any tickets through support. However, my understanding is that, once you open a ticket, they will ask many, many questions, and they do resolve things. It can just be frustrating when you need a problem solved, and they just keep asking questions. There's a bit of going back and forth.

We are actually moving away from Oracle, as it's not very reasonable cost-wise.

What you can do on ODI, for example, can be done on SSIS from Microsoft too, which is free of cost.

In terms of the initial setup, at first, it was a bit hard for me. That said, it is pretty straightforward once you are done with this data source connection tool and once you are done with this on the repository side. Setting up a reporting server was easy, however, doing the middleware, especially on the application server, was a bit tedious for me.

I'd rate the setup process a four out of five in terms of ease of implementation.

It's quite an expensive solution. We'd like it if they could adjust the pricing according to the region they are operating in. 

Per user, it is $900 USD per year, though they will give some discount. However, even a 60% to 70% of discount for each won't help us much. On top of that, there is the perpetual license you must pay at the outset.

I'd rate the cost at a one out of five in terms of affordability.

I've used the solution mostly on the testing side. I haven't done anything on the client side or on the production side. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I have used ODI to improve run-times of many corporations' overall integration run-times. Corporations on a daily basis run integration jobs which normally take five hours or more. I have seen these jobs become hourly jobs because of the time reduction they received with ODI's involvement.

The Knowledge Module (KM) is my favorite feature of ODI. This is where I learned how to use variables to make jobs dynamic. I took that knowledge and created a KM that would go into iTunes and pull the sales of eBooks. Making something that is reusable, like a KM, is important to not only reduce build time but also maintenance in the future.

Error handling can always be improved with ODI. A lot of the errors are generic, but I will say that with a little experience, you can decipher the errors to help you fix them. In fact, I find myself not using the debugger that came out with 12c, just because I have learned to read "ODI-login-eze."

If there was a way to keep the basic user from creating a monster SQL that kills a system on execution, that would be great as well.

I have used it for 10 years. It's hard to believe it has been that long, but time flies when you have fun -- and I actually have fun when developing integration solutions. I started out on 10g and was able to quickly pick up on the ELT model after working with ETL for years before that. I was one of the first to install 11g on Red Hat. The main reason for the upgrade to 11g was purely looks as there were very little actual enhancements beside a couple of tools.12c was a major overhaul. I love working with 12c as it's now a flow-based tool but still ELT. It brings me back to the days of Hyperion Application Link (HAL), except that 12c isn't slow.

Stability is good, better than 10g and 11g.

Scalability-wise, 12c is the best in it's class. I could hand 12c to any size client and they would be fine developing and maintaining it.

I think that you get more than the regular Oracle support when you are working with ODI. Even the "First Responders" have a very wide knowledge on the product. This is a pleasant change from some of the other products for which you get the person who asks if your computer is plugged in.

I work on all the other integration products as well as ODI. In fact, I had to compare all the integration products (ODI, SSIS, HAL, Informatica, DataStage) when we were trying to decide on the strategic direction for the major bank that I was working for. HAL was being sunset, so easy decision there. DataStage cost a lot to host and was hard to develop in. Informatica was not installed anywhere in the corporation so the knowledge base for us wasn't there, so it got the boot too. It really came down to SSIS and ODI. We had a lot of SSIS knowledge and I was the only ODI developer. I took someone who never seen SSIS and ODI before, but had basic database knowledge, sat them in front of a computer, and gave them a day course on both. To be fair, after each course they had them create a job to do the same load. Results were clear and ODI won hands-down. ODI won out because of price, support, and speed/ease of development.

In 12c, they have made the setup so much more simple then what it used to be. The interface to do the setup walks you through every setup step.

I have been on both sides of the fence for this question. I would always have a vender do the install if you have never used the product before. There are a lot of little tweaks that can be made that takes experience with the tool to know these tweaks. If you have had the product for over a year, I would say, that in-house would be ok. Just make sure that if you have to remediate the install that you involve Oracle in that process so you make sure that all the parts get cleaned up properly otherwise the reinstall could be problematic.

The ROI on this tool is dependent on if it is implemented properly. When done properly your ROI is very quick. Most client however block the ability to have this setup properly. However the Cloud version is helping us as consultant show the client how powerful this setup can be.

I would say that you need to pay attention to the licensing to make sure that you are not paying to much. Normally, the licensing can be your friend if you don't need ODI for anything complex. You can switch ODI to go back to ETL if you don't want to spend that much money. Thin about it this way, if you are charged for only where it translates the data, then put a 4-core Red Hat in the middle of everything. Force your jobs to translate only on the Red Hat server. Your 1 million dollar implementation just went to 200k -- you're welcome. The caveat with the ETL setup is that the processing is slower per job -- you're not welcome. Again, ask yourself, what do I really need this for?

Know what you are getting into.

If you are going to use a firm to build out a solution, ask for a Proof of Concept and ask them to show you how flexible it can be. If they can't quickly come up with something, be wary. Don't just go with someone that is cheap, you get what you pay for.

This snapshot is to turn on automapping. This is a very useful function to have on when developing. This will make the magic happen when you connect a source and a target together. This is not in the documentation, so good luck finding how to turn it on if you haven't used it before.

Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) integrates with the cloud, but the 12C version only can be integrated with the cloud. The best part of the ODI is, it does not have its own ETL engine of its own, it utilizes the database engine itself.

We use ODI for data integration only, such as extraction, transformation, and loading of data from different sources into one particular database. Additionally, we use ODI for our data warehouse.

ODI's most valuable features are it utilizes the database engine and is very lightweight.

ODI's ability to connect multiple types of database environments from a particular server, place, or system is beneficial. I can connect to many databases, such as Dev, UAT, production, or user acceptance test databases. All together in only one place. It's all about changing the context in that particular application. The moment you change the context, the ODI will start processing the data from different environments altogether.

ODI could improve by being more user-friendly. Informatica, which is also an ETL tool, similar to ODI, but Informatica is very user-friendly, easy to use, and simple to integrate, compared to ODI. ODI has many features, put them all together, and sometimes we get confused about which ones to use, which ones not to use.

I have been using Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) for approximately two years.

The stability of Oracle Data Integrator is very good.

ODI is scalable, it is a matter of your configuration. If you configure the tools properly it is scalable.

The solution can be used for small to large enterprises.

I have been satisfied with the technical support.

I have used other solutions previously.

ODI has one of the easiest implementations out of all the others for a database.

I would recommend using ODI if we are using an Oracle Database as your data warehouse, or as your primary database only. If not then I wouldn't recommend ODI to be used. 

I have seen the newer cloud version and I think it is more user-friendly than the older versions.

I rate  Oracle Data Integrator an eight out of ten.

I primarily use ODI as a tool for data integration and data warehousing.

ODI's best features are customization, integration with other versioning tools, and the ability to define new knowledge modules.

I've been using ODI for four years.

ODI is very stable.

ODI is scalable, depending on the architecture you use.

Oracle's technical support is pretty quick to respond, but it has several levels, so it can take some time for more complex problems to be solved. 

The initial setup is complex, especially if you also have to install a console. Deployment takes a day or two. 

We used an integrator.

I would give ODI a rating of nine out of ten.

We use the product to transfer data from one stage to another of the data layers. It helps move data from different layers, transform, manage, and put the proper timestamp on the managed data.

One significant area for improvement in legacy ETL products such as ODI and PowerCenter is the steep learning curve and the necessity for a highly skilled development team. We are trying to escape this to provide solutions to end customers more efficiently.

We have been using Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) for over ten years.

I rate the product stability as ten out of ten.

Given the new technologies and complexity, I rate the platform's scalability a five out of ten.

Oracle support services are not up to the mark.

Negative

We are working with PowerCenter from Informatica and StreamSets from SoftwareAG, now an IBM product. We also use Microsoft SSIS in some basic ways.

We have deployed ODI mainly on-premises, accessing some Oracle cloud databases through a VPN. We maintain and upgrade it.

I rate the platform pricing as five out of ten.

We have not evaluated any other product before, as ODI was already in place due to the project's age. We are now evaluating StreamSets to improve user experience and flexibility to scale-up/down according business needs and reduce dependence on highly skilled developers, providing a ready to go solution to functional teams.

The key feature of ODI that makes it most effective for handling large data volumes is its ELT (Extract, Load, Transform) solution. It loads data from the database and then transforms using its resources, which is helpful. It does not require building all the data into the container or the ETL server, which usually consumes more CPU. It uses the power of the database system efficiently.

We are mainly using Oracle products, and it's straightforward. Oracle products integrate very well, reducing the time consumed in transformation compared to other products.

I recommend the product depending on specific business requirements. It can be complex for new cloud integrations and more modern iterations. I don't recommend ODI for those users, especially since it has become a legacy product.

I rate it a six out of ten.

Integration with all systems is easy with Oracle Data Integrator, and it is easy to use. I have not used any other product, but with Oracle Data Integrator, we can easily connect to an ERP system, an SAP system, or a cloud application.

It has been very good. Just recently, I've faced an issue, but I solved it somehow. While integrating with a file, I faced an issue where I wanted output files, and I had used the text field limited quotations, but at the end of the file, there was a line breakage for the last column. So, we just removed the text field because it was not working correctly for us.

I have been using this solution for around seven years.

It is pretty good.

It is scalable.

I didn't contact them for the line breakage issue, but I have contacted them for other things. My experience with them was good. Their solution was quick and the response was quick. I would rate them a four out of five.

We have seen a return on investment with this product.

Everything is good, and I would rate it an eight out of ten.

The most value feature of this product are the Knowledge Modules. Oracle Data Integrator comes with a comprehensive library of Knowledge Modules that helps automate the data flow, reduce the learning curve, and shorten the implementation time.

The use of this product has helped identify data quality issues in upstream source systems. As a result, data quality rules have been implemented in order to capture them during data entry.

I would like to see in the next version/release the ability to scale a package workflow or data flow process during the execution at run time. Once a workflow is developed, a snapshot of the code is taken and a scenario is created. It is the scenario that is executed during run time. In order to add a step to the package workflow, you must modify it and re-create another scenario. Thus, making such changes to package workflow can impact other packages that are dependent.

I have used this product for more than 13 years. I was first exposed to this product back in 2003. Before Oracle Corporation purchased the product, it was formerly known as Sunopsis. I learned to develop workflow packages with version 3.

We experienced no issues with the deployment.

It’s a perfectly stable product and we’ve not experienced any issues.

We have been able to scale it for our needs.

Oracle technical support for this product is excellent.

Although the initial setup was straightforward, you must decide if you will create one schema for the master and work repository or separate schemas. However, the product provides a step-by-step menu-driven UI, which makes the installation a breeze.

The implementation was done by both a vendor and internal resources. In addition, name standards for objects (e.g., packages, scenarios, procedures) should be considered and each package should be design independently from other packages (e.g., Modular Programming).

MS SQL Server Integration Services (SSIS) was considered. However, the internally-preferred vendor company was Oracle. The availability of a license and expertise in product usage helped in the decision-making process.

The most important decision is the deployment strategy of the Master and Work Repositories that is the use of Single or Multiple Master Repositories. The company’s internal policy will determine which strategy can be used. However, the most common implementation I have seen is multiple master and work repositories. It performs and works as advertised.