Boomi is a cloud-based, on-premise, or hybrid integration platform. It offers a low-code/no-code
interface with the capacity for API and EDI connections for integrating with external organizations and
systems, as well as compliance with data protection regulations.
$550
per month
Okta Workflows
Score 8.8 out of 10
N/A
Azuqua was a tool that helped users integrate their SaaS applications and build custom automations. It was acquired by Okta in late 2019, and is now part of Okta Workflows. Okta Workflows leverages Azuqua’s workflow orchestration engine and application integrations to automate complex identity-centric processes such as user onboarding and offboarding. The product is available as part of the Okta Lifecycle Management…
N/A
Pricing
Boomi
Okta Workflows
Editions & Modules
Boomi
$550
per month
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Boomi
Okta Workflows
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
Optional
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Boomi
Okta Workflows
Considered Both Products
Boomi
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Boomi
Boomi is overall easier to manage that other SOA products we've used
Boomi is one of the best integration platforms out there, but it still has its niche. It is suitable for most integration scenarios especially those that doesn't require very high throughput. The runtime could be hosted on-prem and in the cloud or even in a hybrid mode, which …
Compared to rest of the solutions, Boomi is centered around solving this exact problem not in just the landscape of SAP but many other backends. this puts them in place of very experienced in term of integration in wide range of scenarios. they most probably have encountered …
MuleSoft and Boomi are built on totally different frameworks. Mulesoft is an API-led network whereas Boomi is an ETL middleware approach. In easy words, Mulesoft can connect to several apps and business units, can create and reuse multiple components. Boomi offers only …
We decided to go with Dell Boomi because another department in our company was already using the software. We did not research competitor applications to use as our business solution. Dell Boomi was very easy and quick to set up, so once we decided to use Dell Boomi for systems …
As I was new to Integration, I needed to explore new middleware like Dell Boomi [to compare to] the first middleware used by our organization. But [so far in my experience] I have been so excited to use this integration tool for automation. But this will be a different …
Mulesoft was evaluated by [and] definitely was not the right fit for the organization considering the type of integrations which were built in the enterprise historically. Dell Boomi on the other hand was more graphical and was more easy to use and is the best ipaas at the …
We evaluated Boomi with Mulesoft and Celigo. Boomi was recommended by Netsuite and it was the best all around solution that allowed for custom coding, but had drag/drop solution design. Mulesoft was much more technical and robust, but required a significant amount of coding …
I'm not aware of major competitors to Dell Boomi. Dell Boomi feels like the de-facto standard that my Finance and IT teams have used for several years. We are happy with it.
I did not select Boomi. It is the tool used in the company. In my previous work I worked with InfoSphere DataStage and QualityStage, and I can say that these tools are much more powerful when making transformations, alerts, connect to different sources. Boomi is good at …
We have used Oracle SOA since 2010 for our custom on-premise applications integration purposes. To some extent we were successful but overall we did not manage to integrate and build other than several business processes with it. The main reasons were: - the IT …
I would choose Boomi every day for real-time integrations. I really enjoy using it. I would struggle to recommend using it for a batch application unless you really had to. SSIS seems like it would be a better choice if doing batch jobs but the learning curve is much higher …
We have evaluated Mulesoft as well before going with Dell Boomi. The only difference is the Complete Cloud architecture provided by Boomi and also the ease of using the software, where you don't need to install anything on a developer machine or testing machine or any quality …
Dell Boomi - no installation. Start immediate coding - it's the best thing which I like. Now all PaaS providers are doing same. Dell Boomi entered the game first.
Even though Azuqua may be a bit more user friendly, Boomi can handle many more situations. Azuqua couldn't handle the majority of the processes we wanted to perform.
I have used other integration tools as well (with 10 years of integration experience). Eventually, I liked Boomi for its simplicity and easy graphical representation, development, installation, versioning and deployment. Testing Boomi processes is another plus because it is …
Sr Integration Engineer - Dual Certified in Dell Boomi Developer 1 & 2, and Actian DataConnect
Chose Boomi
Our team has used Actian DataConnect since the Mid 1990's. It was formerly known as Data Junction and then Pervasive Data Integrator. We looked at Boomi as an additional tool to aid in our Integrations. We did compare it to Informatica and thought it was a better fit for …
I think Okta is so much more complete and FUB is more only sales oriented instead of Customer Service, with Okta you can call, chat, get in contact internally with other departments, and do different things to solve customer issue.
I evaluated Zapier and Microsoft Flow before coming across Azuqua. Zapier was too simplistic and didn't allow for transfer of enough variables. The price point also didn't work for the value it could provide. Microsoft Flow couldn't make the connection with Smartsheet, and I …
Stampley - on the surface they look similar, but I came across this alternative after integrating with Azuqua so I haven't fully evaluated it against Azuqua.
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 …
Azuqua was the first application we assessed for our purposes, and served our needs so well that we felt no need to search further. It gave us the solutions we needed in a way that was easy to set up and maintain, and the support we received was above and beyond expectations, …
I had to use the Automate tool for funneling image assets in bulk (tens of thousands) from FTPs into various destinations on an eCommerce platform. The user interface was quite harsh in comparison to Azuqua. Far more text/code line driven.
Azuqua offered the most customization of the other platforms we tried. While it was comparably intuitive to use, in terms of entry level, Azuqua maintained this intuitiveness at higher levels of sophistication/integration whereas the other platforms either lacked the same logic …
Smartsheet notifications is the main competitor for what we use Azuqua for. When we got Azuqua, there was no competitor and Smartsheet actually recommended it as the solution. Now, we split up the work between the 2 tools and use Smartsheet for the easier notifications and …
Easy to build out complex if/then scenarios and fire of multiple other workflows within one workflow. Like the UI of seeing how data is being utilizes, ported, and manipulated across the workflows. Also like the workflow history for optimization as well as troubleshooting. Raw …
Dell Boomi is well-suited as a middleware to talk between systems. I am a personal fan of Dell's products and I enjoy this service. Dell Boomi is very easy to use, even to the less technically-inclined user. It is less appropriate to use in one system alone, but users would still find it functional in one system alone because it helps manage the system's metadata and allows that system to be integrated with other systems in the future.
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).
The best part about Azuqua is that you do not need to write code. You do however need to have an understanding of logic and how the software works. This happens to fit me perfectly as someone with basic programming experience.
Their Support is second to none. Not only are they extremely quick and responsive, but their answers are never canned responses and always provide valuable content.
They seem to take feedback seriously and will continue to evolve and make a better product.
More from a development perspective. It is always difficult to use the properties features. It takes a while to understand how the data/variables can be used across an integration.
Dell Boomi should also invest more on API Management and not just seen as a ETL,ESB tool.
Should roll out features more often based on users reviews.
I think it requires an easy way to migrate flows created from one user to then move the ownership to another user. It happened to us that one of our engineers left the company and he had the Azuqua account and flows. It required quite some time, cases and telephone calls to do the migration to my account.
Dell Boomi has provided us with the ability to connect our campus together using our various existing platforms. There are many supported features and have yet to run into something that we cannot do. Its user interface is very intuitive which would allow users to begin developing fairly easily. There is a myriad of resources available
First of all, as a service (cloud service), we don't need to care about server maintenance any more, no worries about incorrect configurations, about down time. Second, for maintaining, we don't need a large team to do it. And of course, using Dell Boomi instead of manual transaction could help us to avoid people mistake while inputting data or doing transactions.
The system is working as it should, keeping our programs safe from outside hackers. Helping us keep our passwords safe, convenient and already ready to get us logged into the program securely and quickly. Verification that only authorized users are able to access our company's programs. Okta Workflows (Azuqua) is a very good system that has helped our company greatly.
I would rate Dell Boomi as highly performant. We have used it for 4+ years and have not had any major issues with availability or speed. We also have not observed performance degradation when connecting it with other software solutions.
Boomi support was responsive and knowledgable, however being a closed cloud service, it doesn't have good community support. We found the learning curve to be steep and there aren't avenues like google, forums, or blogs that provide community driven insight into the product or how to go about designing solutions using the tool
MuleSoft and Boomi are built on totally different frameworks. Mulesoft is an API-led network whereas Boomi is an ETL middleware approach. In easy words, Mulesoft can connect to several apps and business units, can create and reuse multiple components. Boomi offers only on-premise and on-cloud integration solutions whereas MuleSoft is capable of providing on-premise, on-cloud as well as hybrid solutions. We can say that MuleSoft is much more flexible and offers multiple integration solutions.
I evaluated Zapier and Microsoft Flow before coming across Azuqua. Zapier was too simplistic and didn't allow for transfer of enough variables. The price point also didn't work for the value it could provide. Microsoft Flow couldn't make the connection with Smartsheet, and I was unable to get Microsoft support or Smartsheet support to assist me with the issue.
ROI was flat. Coding directly in apps we were knowledgable in would have been faster, but maintenance higher.
It brought good process to the integration team that was new, however I wouldn't say it was a huge gain monetarily. It is a valid path out of many paths for integration, but doesn't rule them all.
Increased time savings. We could not function as a matter of daily business if we did not have a tool to automate project folders (and complementary workflow management profiles) for the thousands of projects that flow through daily.
Opens up a greater understanding of all the silos and divisions within the company infrastructure and tests secure means to link those groups safely and share information.
Opens up the chance to communicate with other API information sources if our company is doing a partnership with another organization. Granted everything is square with IT security.