Ataccama ONE Platform's major use case, like many companies, is for data quality. What happens is we get the requirement from business, we implement those rules and attach them to the tables so they can get the data quality results. Then they go back to the main source and change the data so it will be clean and effective. The source connections are a good part of this.

I have experience in both Ataccama ONE Platform and Ataccama ONE Desktop. Ataccama ONE Platform goes to some large corporations. We are using it for very big data. There is a lot of data being processed by Ataccama in our organization. It is very good in scalability.

When hybrid deployment is done, it doesn't have an option to load any kind of file directly into Ataccama ONE Platform. What happens is when we load a file into Ataccama ONE Platform, it goes to Ataccama's database rather than the customer's database. That is one backlog.

Lineage is the second part. They used MANTA before. For the past two or three versions, they have developed their own lineage. That is not as good as the original ones. I know they need to improve because it is their own lineage and they are doing it newly, so that will be improved anyway.

When the version is being updated, I think they need to do more regression testing. A few things which have worked in the previous version are not working in the current version. I added a column which was customly added by me in my previous version, and in the current version after the update, I was not able to pull any data from that in my Ataccama ONE Desktop.

We are the people who are deploying Ataccama ONE Platform. We are in the development procedure, developing the platform for business.

The difficulty of deployment for Ataccama ONE Platform depends on the use cases which the business has. Ataccama handles it well from the perspective of data quality and data governance, but when compared to the lineage, I think it needs to improve more.

I have been using Ataccama ONE Platform for maybe two years.

We are still developing the application, so there have not been many crashes or instabilities. It is good. When we are doing upgrades or patch versions, sometimes it has to go down and then we need to restart, and then it comes back again. That is understandable because we are doing upgrades and patches. It is common.

I contact their technical support all the time.

The speed of their support depends on the issue. If it is a small issue, they tend to respond very quickly and they try to answer the question. We are facing a few issues, like with some linear scalars. It has been one and a half to two months now and it is not yet resolved. They are still working on that. That is where it will be slightly concerning.

To the support of Ataccama, I would give a score of six or seven.

I started working with Ataccama directly. I do not know if my company had worked with any other alternatives before.

Ataccama ONE Platform does not require updates to keep it working, but it needs constant updates so we would be in the updated version and do things much better. Constant updates take place and constant patches will be done.

We need a team for the deployment.

I do not have much experience with different tools and how much they charge. Based on my personal opinion and on a few discussions with some people, I think the pricing is reasonable. It is not too high. When compared to some other tools like Collibra, which is a much higher subscription, Ataccama is far better when compared to Collibra or some other leading data governance tools.

I would give this product an overall rating of 7.5 out of 10.

My main use case for Ataccama ONE Platform is to develop data quality rules, apply them in the monitoring project, and then triage the issues with the data quality rules.

For example, we had a project of billing at MetLife. For the MetLife billing, we developed both business rules and technical rules to apply to the data. We developed those rules and then identified issues, and we used DQIT and ServiceNow as an issue tracker for the team to identify the issues and rectify them at the source.

The best features that Ataccama ONE Platform offers are its user-friendliness and the ability to create many rules that we can reuse. A single rule can be applied to multiple columns and multiple projects, which is helpful for deduplication.

The reusability of rules has really helped my work because there are a few technical rules that we can apply, such as the null check. If there is a null check, we have to apply that DQ rule for every primary key. There will be many tables and columns with primary keys, so creating a null check and applying the same null check to multiple tables and columns will really help, making it easy for anyone to identify what kind of rule it is. Having multiple rules of the same logic makes tracking and backtracking the issue a little difficult.

There is also a good feature, the post-processing plan in Ataccama ONE Platform, which is very useful for extracting the metadata of a rule, table, or project, pulling them and then pushing them into a SQL database. With that, I can create dashboards using Tableau or Power BI to see what kind of rules I have applied, what checks I have applied, and what kind of data is failing. It will be easy for anyone to identify what rules are failing since reports matter most because higher management will be seeing them, allowing for correction at the source.

Ataccama ONE Platform has positively impacted my organization by being much cheaper compared to other DQ tools and providing very good support. If we need any features and give them time and bandwidth, they really develop them for us. It has also helped with cost-cutting, and we have many more features like address validation that help organize data from source to target.

Ataccama ONE Platform improved efficiency considerably, as we developed every DQ from scratch and started implementing DQ using Ataccama. It reduced time and effort, especially with the help of the Collibra to Ataccama integration. Collibra is a data governance tool, so with the help of the Collibra to Ataccama integration and vice versa, all the metrics and key performance indicators were moved to Collibra, giving a whole data governance visibility.

I worked in Ataccama ONE Platform from version 5 and now we have version 15, which has improved a lot. However, there is still considerable scope for improvement because Ataccama ONE Platform was not that great around 2020 when I started working with it. There can still be more features including writing any logic, improving more keywords for logic building, and enhancing address validation, based on my understanding.

User experience is actually good; I do not have any complaints or feedback on that. However, the documentation part can be improved because documentation is key for any organization or tool. If anything is needed for understanding, you have to rely on documentation. Ataccama's documentation has potential for improvement.

I have been working with Ataccama ONE Platform for more than four years.

Ataccama ONE Platform is stable.

Ataccama ONE Platform's scalability is high, supporting large volumes of data and complex logic with flexible deployment options.

The support from Ataccama's customer service team is very good. We can raise a ticket using Jira, and they address it as soon as possible based on priority. If we have priority issues, we can highlight that, and they will address those as fast as possible. If needed, they schedule calls and discuss issues if they cannot be resolved through messaging or emails. The service is really good.

I have not used any different solution before Ataccama ONE Platform because by the time I joined the organization, they were about to start using Ataccama. I have not used a different solution previously, but currently, we are using a different solution in my new organization.

It was a little tough for my team to learn and start using Ataccama ONE Platform because the documentation at that time was not good. However, after multiple connects with the vendor team and through a little exploration, we started identifying things, and eventually, we began working on it. I would rate it a seven.

I have definitely seen a return on investment. Money got saved and time got saved because previously, data quality was addressed through SQL and Python. This approach definitely got streamlined, saving both time and reducing the team size necessary to take it further.

My experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing was good. It was mainly handled by leadership, so I found the pricing reasonable. The only concern I had was that some features like address validation cost a little extra with the basic plan, though you still receive support there.

We evaluated different options such as Monte Carlo and IDQ before choosing Ataccama ONE Platform.

Ataccama ONE Platform was on-premise before but has moved to a hybrid cloud now.

Ataccama ONE Platform integrates with other tools or systems in my organization.

Ataccama ONE Platform connects with Collibra, which is a data governance tool, and it also connects with cloud platforms, databases, data warehouses, and third-party applications like Snowflake, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, Amazon Web Services, and big data environments. Regarding databases, we can connect to DataBricks, Oracle, and Microsoft SQL Server. For third-party applications, we can connect through ServiceNow.

Ataccama ONE Platform handles data security and compliance in my organization by using GDPR, HIPAA, and mainly these two frameworks, along with AI governance ensuring privacy through multiple encryptions. For production data, we use data masking and strict access rules. Additionally, we have multiple teams for monitoring, auditing, and policy enforcement.

The performance and speed of Ataccama ONE Platform when handling large data sets were a bit difficult initially, but it has improved a lot. It is fine now for handling big data.

I would definitely recommend Ataccama ONE Platform to others looking into using it.

A tip for new users is definitely to go through the documentation and practice a little about the data quality rules and how to develop them. The UI is very user-friendly and very self-explanatory, so you will understand it well.

I would definitely encourage anyone to take Ataccama ONE Platform and use it. I would rate this review a seven.

My main use case for Ataccama ONE Platform is mastering my customer data like customer details, address, phone number, and email, as we experience a lot of duplicates. We use Ataccama ONE Platform for mastering and making the data unique.

For example, I use Ataccama ONE Platform in my daily work to handle a customer called John Doe with the address as one single tree, and we have one more record with the same customer name John Doe but with the address as four single tree. The PIN of those two customers is the same, and even the phone numbers and emails are the same, so we have two customers. We use Ataccama ONE Platform to merge those two customers and have one unique record, which is one master record.

This is our primary purpose, and I do not have anything else to add about how I handle these kinds of data issues.

The best features Ataccama ONE Platform offers, which stand out to me the most, is the way it takes out the survivorship record from a group of customers' data or any type of data based on the match and merge rules that we apply. That is the unique feature and the most enhanced feature I have ever seen.

When it comes to match and merge rules, Ataccama ONE Platform is quite straightforward. You identify what rules you need based on your business requirement. For example, if you want to match and merge the customer based on the last name plus address, that is one rule. You can go to selection criteria and have the column selected, such as the last name and the address. Similarly, you can have multiple rules in the order by, such as first name, last name plus email or first name, last name plus phone. It is quite straightforward.

Ataccama ONE Platform has positively impacted my organization, and when we talk about big wins, initially our project had almost eighty million to ninety million customer records which were not pure data, as it had a lot of duplicates. Ataccama ONE Platform has helped us narrow it down to sixty-five million. We are still trying to lower it down more, which is a big win—at least a twenty million reduction in the data size or the storage size.

This reduction has impacted our team and business by reducing costs, but we are expecting more reduction. We are not fully satisfied and are expecting at least twenty to thirty percent more reduction, but it has improved our cost and performance.

There are multiple areas where Ataccama ONE Platform can be improved. One area is handling the huge volume, which has been one drawback as it gets slow, and the performance or speed gets slow when there is huge data. The second thing is that after every change and every match and merge rule you apply, you need to reprocess the entire record, which has to again go through the match and merge rules.

If there is any change, instead of reprocessing all the records manually, Ataccama should have an inbuilt functionality to handle the reprocessing of the historical records based on the new rules.

I have been using Ataccama ONE Platform for two years.

I would not say Ataccama ONE Platform is one hundred percent stable. I would rate it at seventy percent stable.

Ataccama ONE Platform's scalability does not handle increases in data or users well. As the volume increases, the performance of Ataccama ONE Platform decreases.

Customer support is very good with Ataccama ONE Platform. I would rate the customer support a nine.

I did not previously use a different solution before Ataccama ONE Platform.

I do not have the metrics, but I have seen a return on investment.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that it was not very high. It was at a high end but not that high, and costing was a problem.

What made the costing a problem with Ataccama ONE Platform is related to licensing, as it is every one year.

Before choosing Ataccama ONE Platform, we evaluated other options, specifically IBM MDM, but we wanted to try a new option with better technology, so we opted for Ataccama ONE Platform.

There are many features, and I currently do not recall anything else.

I gave Ataccama ONE Platform a rating of seven out of ten due to the main reasons being the mastering of the data and the efficiency it has. The one negative point that caused me to reduce the score by three points is due to the not proper handling of huge volume.

The negative point I mentioned, specifically, that brought the score down for me is that when there is a huge data reprocessing, the reprocessing of the jobs takes almost more than ten hours to fifteen hours and that disrupts our business load. We cannot do those processing during the business hours and have to wait for non-business hours as it takes ten hours and we cannot have our system down for ten hours.

My advice to others looking into using Ataccama ONE Platform would be that if the data is under fifty million or forty million, Ataccama ONE Platform is the MDM tool you might be looking for. It is good for mastering, data quality, and reprocessing. It is not my company that has the business relation, but my client which has a relationship as a partner with Ataccama ONE Platform.

I will say, as per the new technology that Ataccama ONE Platform is, it is a great start. Within a few years, it has captured a lot of market, and I am very hopeful that in the next few years it will be the most popular mastering and data quality tool worldwide. I rated Ataccama ONE Platform a seven out of ten.

Some of the use cases for Ataccama ONE included data quality, identifying and mapping to Collibra, which was their data governance tool. It was critical for them to interface directly with that tool. They also used Ataccama for connecting to their ticketing system and later for inline fixing of data quality issues, moving them to someone able to take that issue and do course correction.

We used Ataccama ONE to read data from the mainframe for a data quality perspective. There's a significant lack in that area with tools being able to interface with mainframe. MetLife has a diverse environment, including DB2, Oracle, SQL Server, legacy, and vSAN files. Being able to work in these various environments and put them to a single data quality tool was very appealing. Additionally, Ataccama supported AI and machine learning, which was one of the features I liked. Furthermore, we were able to interface bidirectionally with Collibra for data governance, catching data quality issues before propagating through the system.

The interfacing to tools such as Collibra was somewhat cumbersome and required more thought. While it was possible to configure these interfaces, they required some coding. It would be beneficial if these interactions could be more plug-and-play and less code-intensive, making them more efficient and easier to set up.

Ataccama ONE has been in use for over two years. I am not with MetLife anymore, but I know they are still using it.

Ataccama ONE was quite stable. We went through one patch during my tenure, which went smoothly, and the updates were worth implementing, with no significant problems observed.

There was a concern with the architectural team about how much processing Ataccama ONE would need as usage scaled up. I did not experience any problems personally, but I understood their concerns regarding resource usage in the long run.

Customer service was excellent, and I would give it a ten out of ten. MetLife worked with senior developers who made a positive impact on our experience, and I would hope that smaller clients receive similar attention.

MetLife did not use a previous solution. Everything was custom handwritten before Ataccama.

The initial setup of Ataccama ONE was somewhat complex. We needed their technical team involved for setup and configuration, which is common for tools of this complexity. Once set up, adding new data quality elements was straightforward.

The implementation involved Ataccama's technical team as they helped engage with the setup and configuration.

I noticed the data quality issues faced previously by MetLife cost significantly more than the Ataccama solution itself. Legally, financially, and reputationally, addressing these data quality issues was crucial, and implementing Ataccama was a major step for them.

Ataccama ONE was competitively priced. However, MetLife experienced challenges during the legal process of set-up, due to disagreement on certain legal clauses.

We evaluated Collibra as they had just acquired OWL, but concerns about integration and stability with the new acquisition made us hesitant to rely on them as a primary solution. The acquisition came with the risk of developer turnover and adjustments, so we opted for Ataccama.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Ataccama a high nine. The tool met many of our needs effectively, and the ability to leverage machine learning was particularly advantageous.

The primary advantage lies in the platform's high degree of automation. Supervision requirements are minimal, and in case of any component failure or connection issues, detailed emails promptly notify us about the problem's location and nature. Similarly, upon resolution, we receive email notifications confirming the fix. This automated notification system is particularly beneficial, as earlier versions lacked such features, necessitating constant manual monitoring. With this improvement, we can redirect our attention to other priorities instead of continuously overseeing the platform, contributing significantly to our efficiency.

The desktop version of the solution was particularly valuable to me, primarily for creating components. We opted for the data quality aspect to assess the quality of our data warehouse. The functionalities available allowed us to not only check data quality but also serve as an ETL tool. This versatility enabled data transformation and storage in various formats, including files on platforms like SharePoint or local online directories. The flexibility of the tool catered to the specific needs of those building components, contributing to our desired outcomes.

Speaking specifically about the version we use, version 12.3, I'm unsure if this has been addressed in subsequent versions. One improvement I'd like to see pertains to the language used in certain components, especially in data quality checks. The language complexity posed a challenge for beginners. Although we had on-site assistance from Ataccama, making it manageable for us, some individuals found it difficult to comprehend, necessitating additional support. The provision of a comprehensive guide for on-premise installation can also be enhanced. The lack of detailed information on the solution's workings and the overwhelming nature of notifications, with extensive content, were areas of concern. Streamlining the notification content in newer versions would significantly expedite issue resolution.

I have been using Ataccama for eight to nine months.

We did encounter a few issues, primarily surfacing around two years post-implementation. These were largely related to network issues. Notably, when there were updates to the database, the application, at times utilizing Jenkins, faced challenges with restarts for both the application and the database. While this was the main hurdle, I currently cannot recall any additional significant challenges.

We haven’t applied this solution in a scalable setting, so I can’t comment on this aspect.

We have the customer support, but there is no particular assigned support facility for us.

I played a role solely in the migration process from the old version to the new version and was not engaged in the IT aspects, such as configuring equipment, setting code for installation, managing firewalls, etc. The installation process involved a company called Adastra. They were present on-site for approximately two to three months, overseeing installation, workforce setup, and providing explanations on system operations. Following this period, we solely relied on our in-house team, as we had no ongoing support arrangement with Ataccama.

Our licensing model wasn't user-specific; instead, we paid fees for the engine and maintenance. As we didn't have a support contract, maintenance fees were likely nonexistent. Regarding the upgrade, we had an account for the initial two or three years, and considering the features provided by the solution, the pricing was reasonable.

Ataccama’s website offers comprehensive guides enabling users to acquaint themselves with the solution, its benefits, current features, and future advancements. The guides are well-structured, focusing not only on the data port aspect but also on broader functionalities like data cataloging and data lineage. The solution provides a holistic view of the entire data flow, including source systems, data warehouse, transformations, and relevant details such as why and how changes occurred. For business users, it facilitates insights into data definitions, creators, and modification history. This extensive information is available when utilizing the complete package, distinguishing it from prior versions that primarily emphasized the data quality part.

Based on all factors, I would rate it 8 out of 10.

Primarily, the use cases pertain to the governance classification of metadata.

The notable aspect lies in the workflow structure, where building the workflow aligns significantly with data governance. They extract rules, and create factor automation, ensuring streamlined governance, especially for similar classifieds. The process involves defined steps and adjustable parameters that seamlessly integrate into the worklist components. Daily operations and background runs are accommodated within the workflow, maximizing possibilities for Acronis use cases. Data profiling and masking, where understanding data details is crucial for security without compromising confidentiality. is well-utilized across different fronts, offering a user-friendly experience for making decisions on data storage, classification, and mapping. The front-end interface is particularly commendable, facilitating easy understanding, and the back-end process in Ataccama ensures the completion of classifier profiling and metadata tagging.

The focus for future improvements lies in strengthening the handling of unstructured data. This entails adapting to new environments, extracting data from platforms such as Slack or Teams, and creating workflows that integrate governance, data privacy, and policy considerations. While the structured data aspect is robust, the current emphasis is on working with restructured databases. There is a notable challenge in having to provide detailed filters before the site recognizes the search criteria. While it facilitates global searches, improvements in the search bar functionality are essential for a more user-friendly experience.

I have been using it for approximately two years.

Dealing with massive amounts of data, I've observed occasional minor hiccups during maintenance or required upgrades. Apart from these instances, I haven't encountered any significant challenges in maintaining Ataccama. The maintenance aspect is straightforward, and I've even witnessed my admin team handling it with ease. Overall, I would say it is stable and reliable.

Considering the extensive data volume in the company-assigned project, which involves working with data ranging from millions to billions, the scalability of Ataccama is quite evident. Specifically, in dealing with metadata, it proves to be highly scalable. The organization heavily relies on it, being integrated with another governance product, Collibra.

I would rate the support that they provide seven out of ten.

Both Collibra and Ataccama are fully functional for all users, including service teams, third-party vendors, and client members.

The initial setup, particularly when it comes to prioritizing and implementing policies, is extremely user-friendly and lightweight.

Despite not being extremely low-cost, the pricing appears reasonable, making it a profitable and viable choice for companies that prioritize data security and adhere to specific policies.

It is an ideal choice for companies prioritizing lineage, stringent data policies, and security measures. Specifically beneficial for businesses handling highly secure data like US customer information with policies such as CPNI, its selection is driven by its alignment with business needs. The platform ensures a secure and efficient solution, minimizing complexity compared to alternative products, and proves to be a strong choice when aligned with the unique needs and demands of the project. Overall, I would rate it seven out of ten.

The solution is used for data quality assessment.

The ease of use of the user console is valuable.

Data movement is a pain. The product must provide the ability to connect to data sources rather than having to bring data to the tool.

I have been using the solution for four years.

The tool is stable.

The tool is scalable.

The technical support is pretty good.

I have used Trillium a little bit. We went through a tender process, and Ataccama came on top.

The initial setup was quite complex. It was due to the complexity of our data. We wanted to connect multiple sources quickly and train users to use them.

The product is reasonably priced.

We evaluated Informatica and IBM. The big advantage Ataccama had over the others was its ability to connect to the Hadoop platform.

People who want to use the tool must fully understand what they are going to use it for and get the best value out of it rather than buying it and then looking at how they're going to use it. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.