Overall Satisfaction with Azuqua Platform
- The concept of reduced code to simplify use by less technical teams lowers the barriers to integration and allows teams to collaborate with ideas and concepts much easier
- The ability to review simply any error cases simplifies the old approaches of debugging and reviewing large and complex logs
- While not strictly part of the platform the support team's efforts to assist, to help clarify issues and then (where necessary) to resolve bugs was a large benefit and a key driver to extend the platform's footprint.
- The number and extent of the application interfaces need to extend to expand on a key benefit - the reduced code and simplicity provided by the card approach.
- The depth and breadth of the debug/error information to assist in the identification of faults/configuration issues
- More documentation with worked examples including extending and soliciting contributions from the Azuqua community.
I have used Mulesoft, Workato, my own code and in past years heavyweight data (e.g. ETL) platforms along with a number of bus technologies. In this case, I was looking for the cloud-based approach that matches our strategy of being totally cloud-focused along with simpler integration platforms that reduce the dependency on a few technical team members.
The integration I used Azuqua for was based on Salesforce, Wrike and Office 365. I found the integration of Salesforce reasonably straightforward, Wrike was limited in the "cards" capability but functional (there are bugs but there are also workarounds but they required assistance from the Azuqua support team) and Office 365 was quite immature (primarily around Excel bugs but also email was limited).