We performed a comparison between Apache Airflow and Informatica Business Process Manager based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Management (BPM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Its user-friendly interface makes it straightforward to operate, offering a plethora of features for data preparation, buffering, and format conversion."
"Development on Apache Airflow is really fast, and it's easy to use with the newer updates. Everything is in Python, so it's not hard to understand. They also have a graphical view, so if you are not a programmer and you are just an administrator, you can easily track everything and see if everything is working or not."
"Every feature in Apache Airflow is valuable. The number of operators and features I've used are mainly related to connectivity services and integrated services because I primarily work with GCP."
"Since the solution is programmatic, it allows users to define pipelines in code rather than drag and drop."
"This is a simple tool to automate using Python."
"Apache Airflow is useful for workflow automation, making it capable of automating pipelines, data pipelines, and data warehouse processes."
"Since it's widely adopted by the community, Apache Airflow is a user-friendly solution."
"The UI is very simple and easy to learn."
"Informatica Business Process Manager is easy to use and learn."
"There isn't any human touch involved. It's just an automated business process to build different applications and talking to various APIs using the client's ecosystems. We then build new functionalities out of it."
"I know that there are two good features, APN and ServiceNow but we haven't explored all of its features yet."
"I have some issues with the solution's communication."
"Apache Airflow should have better integration with cloud platforms."
"I would like to see it more friendly for other use cases."
"Adding more automated components in Apache Airflow for basic things like exporting the data would be helpful."
"There is a need for more features on experimental evolution steps."
"One specific feature that is missing from Airflow is that the steps of your workflow are not pipelined, meaning the stageless steps of any workflow. Not every workflow can be implemented within Airflow."
"We're currently using version 1.10, but I understand that there's a lot of improvements in version 2. In the earlier version that we're using, we sometimes have problems with maintenance complexity. Actually using Airflow is okay, but maintaining it has been difficult."
"The dashboards could be enhanced."
"I need to have some insight into the tool's cloud capabilities."
"We haven't had many technical issues. We don't use all of the components of the tool that are more complex and error-prone."
Apache Airflow is ranked 2nd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 31 reviews while Informatica Business Process Manager is ranked 20th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 2 reviews. Apache Airflow is rated 8.0, while Informatica Business Process Manager is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Apache Airflow writes "Enable seamless integration with various connectivity and integrated services, including BigQuery and Python operators ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Informatica Business Process Manager writes "An easy-to-use solution for ETL purposes ". Apache Airflow is most compared with Camunda, Informatica Cloud API and App Integration, IBM BPM, IBM Business Automation Workflow and Nintex Process Platform, whereas Informatica Business Process Manager is most compared with Camunda and Oracle BPM. See our Apache Airflow vs. Informatica Business Process Manager report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors.
We monitor all Business Process Management (BPM) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.