Caffe Deep Learning Framework vs. OpenText Magellan vs. Streamlit

Caffe is only appropriate for some new beginners who don't want to write any lines of code, just want to use existing models for image recognition, or have some taste of the so-called Deep Learning.

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.

- Don't want to pay Tableau $1,000 / seat? Use Streamlit - Want fully custom views and navigation? Use Streamlit - Want access to Machine Learning and not just your dev team? Use Streamlit - Want to keep things internal and secure? Use Streamlit - Want your Data Science team to be able to crank out projects quickly? Use Streamlit - Sick of Jupyter Notebooks and Business Leaders not understanding them? Use Streamlit Our D.S. strategy has moved completely to delivering pages in Streamlit. I can hand an executive a Jupyter notebook and it'll get lost in translation. I can give them sign-in access to a page and they can answer all of their own "What-If?" questions! We've used Streamlit to productize our Data Science and Machine Learning capabilities.

Incentivized

• Caffe is good for traditional image-based CNN as this was its original purpose.

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

• Incredibly Easy
• Customizable
• Quick and powerful

Incentivized

• Caffe's model definition - static configuration files are really painful. Maintaining big configuration files with so many parameters and details of many layers can be a really challenging task.
• Besides imagine and vision (CNN), Caffe also gradually adds some other NN architecture support. It doesn't play well in a recurrent domain, so we have to say variety is a problem.
• Caffe's deployment for production is not easy. The community support and project development all mean it is almost fading out of the market.
• The learning curve is quite steep. Although TensorFlow's is not easy to master either, the reward for Caffe is much less than the TensorFlow can offer.

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

• Recent Security issues (they quickly released an update to combat this though...)
• Requires a bit of HTML knowledge to really customize. If you're going quick, you don't need HTML though. Streamlit commands will pump your page out fast.

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.

TensorFlow is kind of low-level API most suited for those developers who like to control the details, while Keras provides some kind of high-level API for those users who want to boost their project or experiment by reusing most of the existing architecture or models and the accumulated best practice. However, Caffe isn't like either of them so the position for the user is kind of embarrassing.

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.

I started using Streamlit when it first came out and thought it was really useful and powerful. A few years later and they've really hit their stride! The features / widgets / materials they provide have been well researched, well designed, and well implemented. I will take Streamlit to any future companies I go to as well as be a strong promoter wherever I'm currently at. It's free. It's easy to use. It is really powerful. Sure? You could go pay for a larger system but your Data Science team should be able to handle Streamlit easily. I'd argue a non-technical person spending a few weeks in python could pick up Streamlit really quickly.

Incentivized

• Since we stopped using Caffe before it can reach the production phase, there is no clear ROI that can be defined.

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.

• I've scaled my team 2x since using Streamlit. We show off actual results that users can play with
• We're building a customer facing page that we're going to monetize.
• Incredible amounts of visibility into my team and what we're accomplishing.

Incentivized