Azure Batch vs. OpenText Magellan

To better serve their consumers, businesses that often interact with those clients who rely on Microsoft's software products may consider migrating to Azure. This program would be useful in any installation of a Microsoft product or suite that necessitates a test of the target environment. It is simple to maintain and implement, making it an ideal IT backbone. If a client doesn't have any use for this particular instrument, it's not going to be of any benefit to them.

Incentivized

If you do not have a large budget and are a large organization, I would steer clear of Actuate. If you are looking to do very complex washboarding, I would not use them. Your developers have to be very skilled to work with this. Plan to bring in consultants if necessary to help your process. Adhoc reporting is weak. If your pricing is user based and you expand, this could be very expensive.

• Managing the users
• Having multiple environments
• Creating multiple groups

Incentivized

• The report outputs can vary across different types such as HTML, PDF, and Excel
• Their open source offering is very sufficient
• There are great boards and blogs for developers and engineers to expand and use their features.
• The people from the company that I've worked with are professional and courteous.

Incentivized

• The user interface, in my opinion, might need further clarification.
• Any situation where a user's password has to be reset would benefit from this feature.
• Any accounts that were accidentally established more than once may be transferred over quickly and easily.

Incentivized

• The documentation on all the available features, but most importantly on the scripting side, can be improved
• The standard look & feel of some basic options, like parameter selection or sorting and filtering, looks dated and can't be customized
• The server portal needs to provide better tools
• More integration is needed with other OpenText products

Incentivized

I am no longer working for the company that was using Actuate but I believe they would continue to use it because the stitching costs would be to high. It would require a complete rewrite of the reports and the never version of Actuate (BIRT) even required an almost complete report rewrite

Incentivized

It is quite intuitive to use. It is fit specifically for doing sentiment, emotion, and intention analysis as well as text classification and text summarization. I would have given 10 if it is fit for the purpose of doing image processing and analysis as well. There is a huge market to analyze video and image data.

Incentivized

Always there on the front and backend for us and the client.

They both are great tools and provide the services they have implemented. They are two competing companies that have different cultures and forward mission agendas. I would say Azure is a little easier to support through their user interface for the IT support side of things. Both tools are useful and have their own strength and weakness. If you're a dynamic company with a multitude of customers then both are a required tool to have.

Incentivized

It is vastly superior to these in many ways, for complex reporting it is a much more sophisticated solution. Visualizations are very good. Javascript extensibility is very powerful, others don't support this or as well. Pentaho and MS are both OLAP oriented. Pentaho is moving more toward big data, which was not our primary focus. Others are stuck in the Crystal Reports Band metaphor.

• After initial setup, we now have significantly less time spent processing data.
• The automation of data formatting and display after processing is exciting because it frees us to focus on the data itself.
• Since using Batch, we have significantly decreased the number of items we previously utilized.

Incentivized

• Actuate can handle 50 to 60 sub reports inside a report very well.
• Dynamically creating the datasource, chart, graph, reports are the main advantages. We can do any level of drilling, and can create a performance matrix dashboard efficiently.