We performed a comparison between Informatica PIM and Microsoft MDS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Product Information Management (PIM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."A great product enrichment tool."
"The most important features are the mastering of the data and the UI intuitiveness."
"The staging and hierarchical features are the most valuable."
"Enables non-technical people to directly interact with the BI system."
"The tool is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is the administration console."
"Unlike specialized tools, MDS is adaptable for various industries, making it a versatile choice for master data management."
"The backup and restore functionality are the solution's most valuable aspects."
"What I like about Microsoft, is that it has a huge database with many users."
"It is very easy to deploy and provision a machine."
"It's very easy to use."
"Database access is highly restricted particularly if you're using the cloud version."
"They need more feature flexibility, as it is not fully developed."
"Its look and feel needs improvement. It has a lousy look and feel. Informatica PIM is designed specifically for the retail industry. They need to make sure that it is also applicable to all the other industries and verticals."
"Microsoft MDS isn't getting strong support because Microsoft is focusing more on cloud solutions."
"Microsoft MDS' language should be simple so everyone can use it easily."
"The stability could be improved."
"More generic related things can be included in the services."
"There are occasions when the solution maintains SD and we get duplications of MDS."
"Most of the Microsoft partners, especially digitally, are separate. Personnel are business people, and they do not have technical expertise, so you end up as a company spending a lot of money training your staff and your engineers."
"In the next version, I would like to see integration with Azure."
"The only drawback is that it does not have the matching, merging, and all true MDM components. For these, you have to use another competent called Data Quality Services (DQS). You need to plug it in and use it along with MDS for true MDM. Both of these are integrated together, but you have to do them separately, whereas, in Profisee, there are a couple of screens where you can configure the matching process, create matching rules, and other things, and everything is in one product, which is not the case with MDS. In order to implement a true MDM, you need MDS, DQS, and SSIS. You have to use MDS to store your golden records, DQS to configure and standardize all your rules and matching percentages, and SSIS to load the data to DQS and MDS. At the same time, you also need Melissa Data to clean up your addresses to validate and standardize the addresses. That's the main component of true MDM. It would be good if they can create a true matching component inside MDS and merge MDS and DQS."
Earn 20 points
Informatica PIM is ranked 2nd in Product Information Management (PIM) while Microsoft MDS is ranked 2nd in Master Data Management (MDM) Software with 19 reviews. Informatica PIM is rated 8.2, while Microsoft MDS is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Informatica PIM writes "Great product enrichment tool that provides flexibility and can be plugged with any e-commerce site". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft MDS writes "Useful Excel plug-in, good scalability, and good integration with SQL Server and other Microsoft products". Informatica PIM is most compared with Informatica MDM, SAP Hybris PCM, Stibo STEP MDM, SAP Master Data Governance and Oracle Product Hub, whereas Microsoft MDS is most compared with Informatica MDM, SAP Master Data Governance, Profisee, Reltio Cloud and TIBCO EBX. See our Informatica PIM vs. Microsoft MDS report.
We monitor all Product Information Management (PIM) 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.