Amazon Deep Learning AMIs vs. Informatica Cloud Data Quality

Amazon AMIs has been very useful for the quick setup and implementation of deep learning for data analysis which is something I have used the service for in my own research. We commonly use the service to enable students to run intensive deep learning algorithms for their assessments. This service works well in this scenario as it allows students to quickly set up a suitable environment and get started with little hassle. If you are looking to run simple, surface level deep learning algorithms (kind of contradictory statement I know) then AMI is more complicated than most will need. When it comes to teaching the basics of Machine Learning, this kind of system is unnecessary and there are other alternatives which can be used. That being said this service is a must if you are looking to run complex deep learning via the cloud.

Incentivized

For effective data collaboration, systematic verification of customer information, and address, among others, Informatica Data Quality is a fruitful application to consider. Besides, Informatica Data Quality controls quality through a cleansing process, giving the company a professional outline of candid data profiling and reputable analytics. Finally, Informatica Data Quality allows the simplistic navigation of content, with a dashboard that supports predictability.

Incentivized

• Setting up environment
• Support for different types of machines
• Perfect for Machine Learning / Deep Learning use cases
• Nvidia / Cuda / Conda support easily

Incentivized

• The matching algorithms in IDQ are very powerful if you understand the different types that they offer (e.g., Hamming Distance, Jaro, Bigram, etc..). We had to play around with it to see which best suit our own needs of identifying and eliminating duplicate customers. Setting up the whole process (e.g., creating the KeyGenerator Transformation, setting up the matching threshold, etc..) can be somewhat time consuming and a challenge if you don't first standardize your data.
• The integration with PowerCenter is great if you have both. You can either import your mappings directly to PowerCenter or to an XML file. The only downside is that some of the transformations are unique to IDQ, so you are not really able to edit them once in PowerCenter.
• The standardizer transformation was key in helping us standardize our customer data (e.g., names, addresses, etc..). It was helpful due to having create a reference table containing the standardized value and the associated unstandardized values. What was great was that if you used Informatica Analyst, a business analyst could login and correct any of the values.

• Some aspects of the User Interface are quite confusing and activating packages can be a bit convoluted
• It can be a bit confusing to switch between frameworks for novice users

Incentivized

• Several partnerships diminishing the value of technologies
• Unable to get list of objects from Repository (like sources & targets) that don't have any dependency
• Scheduling: The built-in scheduling tool has many constraints such as handling Unix/VB scripts etc. Most enterprises use third party tools for this.

As pointed out earlier, due all the robust features IDQ has, our use f the product is successful and stable. IDQ is being used in multiple sources (from CRM application and in batch mode). As this is an iterative process, we are looking to improve our system efficiency using IDQ.

Easy to use not only for developers but also business users

Incentivized

The application works well except an occasional error out while using the system. It usually gets fixed when restarting the Infa server

Incentivized

Performance works just fine. It was able to load 200+ business terms, 150+ DQ automation, etc. very well.

Incentivized

Both of these services provide similar functionality and from my experience both are top class services which cover most of your needs. I think ultimately it comes down to what you need each service for. For example Amazon DL AMIs allows for clustering by default meaning I am able to run several clustering algorithms without a problem whereas IBM Watson Studio doesn't provide this functionality. They both provide a wide range of default packages such as Amazon providing caffe-2 and IBM providing sci-kitlearn. My main point is that both are very good services which have very similar functionality, you just need to think about the costs, suitability of features and integration with other services you are using.

Incentivized

IDQ is used by a department at my organisation to ensure and enhance the data quality.
The usage was started with address standardization and now it had been brought to altogether a next level of quality check where it fixes duplicates, junk characters, standardize the names, streets, product descriptions.
In the past we had issues mainly with duplicate customers and products and this were affecting the sales projection and estimates.

Scalability works as expected and it is truly an enterprise system.

Incentivized

• Saves a lot of Infra Costs
• Saves a lot of time in handling environment issues
• Easy to start a new instance

Incentivized

• Integration with tools like PowerCenter helped faster delivery of product, and at the same time conversion
• Reduce overall project cost due to bad data , bad quality, exceptions identified nearing go-live and post production
• Employee efficiency is increased exponentially due to more automated, customized tool