GigaOm benchmark report: Fivetran HVR vs Qlik Replicate

At 200 GB/hour, Fivetran HVR produced 27x lower latency and proved 25% less costly than Qlik Replicate.

A new report released by technology research firm GigaOm compares replication latency and total cost of ownership between Fivetran HVR and Qlik Replicate.

GigaOm performed a series of tests on both Fivetran HVR and Qlik Replicate to compare latency and total cost of ownership across multiple change data volumes when replicating from an Oracle database source to a Snowflake cloud data warehouse destination. The results favored Fivetran HVR for both latency and total cost of ownership:

  • Fivetran HVR showed 27 times lower latency than Qlik Replicate at 200GB/hour of change data 
  • Fivetran HVR is 25% less expensive than Qlik Replicate at 200GB/hour of change data
“These results highlight what we’ve already known: Fivetran is the leader in data integration, especially when it comes to performance and cost. We are constantly innovating and improving our database replication capabilities to ensure we meet the needs of our customers across any architecture, cloud platform or deployment requirements.”
- Helge Scheil, EVP - Engineering

Fivetran has made significant investments in replication latency, high-volume throughput and support for additional architectures and deployment models. Fivetran offers multiple database replication solutions to move data from over 15 database and data warehouse sources such as Oracle, PostgreSQL and SQL Server to address the needs of large enterprises utilizing their data — whether on-premises or in the cloud — for business insights, predictive analytics and AI/ML workloads.

[CTA_MODULE]

GigaOm report testing details and specifications

The benchmark tests compared Fivetran HVR and Qlik Replicate at high rates of change data per hour. Each platform was compared using an Oracle database installed on an AWS EC2 instance with HammerDB creating a TPC-C-like database plus additional wide tables to expand the amount of change data produced. GigaOm used the following specifications for their EC2, HammerDB, Oracle and Snowflake instances:

Configuration Iterations
Oracle EC2 instance sizes r5b.4xlarge (16 vCPU, 128 GB RAM)
r5b.8xlarge (32 vCPU, 256 GB RAM)
Snowflake warehouse size Small (2 credits/hour)
Oracle tablespaces 1, 2 and 3
TPC-C scale factors 20, 30 and 30 warehouses
HammerDB virtual user threads 1, 2, 5, 10, 20 and 30
Test durations 15 and 60 minutes
Source: GigaOm 2024

Each platform was configured based on vendor-documented steps and specifications to ensure optimal replication performance. The platforms were tested at three change data volume rates: 50GB/hr, 100GB/hr and 200GB/hr to mimic enterprise-scale scenarios using the below configurations.

Configuration Qlik Replicate Fivetran HVR
Version November 23 6.1.5
Release date November 14, 2023 November 21, 2023
Installation download AWS Marketplace Fivetran Account Dashboard
Hub operating system Microsoft Windows Server 2019 Base Ubuntu 22.04
EC2 instance size m5a.4xlarge c6id.4xlarge
EC2 CPU + memory 16 vCPU, 64 GB RAM 16 vCPU, 32 GB RAM
EC2 On-demand rate $0.6880 $0.8064
Hub disk storage EBS gp3 3,000 IOPS EC2 locally-attached SSD
Additional settings N/A CycleByteLimit=0
Source: GigaOm 2024

GigaOm report results and conclusions

The GigaOm testing analyzed two important parts of evaluating data integration platforms: replication latency and total cost of ownership. As the need for real-time data grows, lower replication latency can power agile insights and business decisions. Similarly, enterprises need to make smart budgeting decisions with the acquisition of new software platforms. Therefore, the ideal data integration platform should have low replication latency and an inexpensive total cost of ownership.

Fivetran HVR proved to have lower replication latency and lower total cost of ownership than Qlik Replicate at enterprise-level change data volumes. As the rate of change data increased, Fivetran HVR replication latency steadily, yet minimally increased from just over 2 minutes at 50GB/hour to barely more than 3 minutes at 200GB/hour. Meanwhile, Qlik Replicate replication latency increased exponentially from 2.8 minutes at 50GB/hour to over 83 minutes at 200GB/hour. This resulted in Fivetran HVR having 27 times lower latency at 200GB/hour than Qlik Replicate.

Redo log rate Qlik latency Fivetran latency Fivetran advantage
50 GB/hour 2.8 min 2.1 min 1.3x
100 GB/hour 15.3 min 2.5 min 6x
200 GB/hour 83.4 min 3.1 min 27x
Source: GigaOm 2024

GigaOm compared the cost of owning both Fivetran HVR and Qlik Replicate over the course of one year. This calculation included each platform’s licensing and usage costs, EC2 instance and Snowflake costs when syncing data once per hour, 24/7. 

The total cost of ownership of Fivetran HVR replicating 200GB/hour of change data for one year is $138,882, significantly lower than Qlik Replicate at $171,530.

Fivetran continues to invest in database replication innovation

With innovations such as log-free change data capture for databases and support for on-premises, hybrid and cloud deployments, Fivetran continues to push ahead in the database replication space. Fivetran has made significant strides in latency, throughput and compute costs for database replication to ensure enterprises can make valuable insights at lower costs than the competition. 

“As we continue to innovate, our goal is to efficiently and securely handle every database replication scenario,” Kiran Prabhakara, VP Product Management of Databases at Fivetran, says. “We continue to invest in new features and capabilities for our database connectors such as hybrid deployment options and additional replication methods.” 

The GigaOm report demonstrates that Fivetran is a leader and innovator in data integration, moving data more efficiently and cost-effectively than the competition. Enterprises like Autodesk, Condé Nast, JetBlue and Morgan Stanley derive considerable value from using Fivetran to replicate data, fuel analytics, drive operational efficiencies and power innovation. Fivetran is at the forefront of database replication addressing customers’ needs for faster throughput, higher volumes and lower latency at an affordable and sustainable price point.

[CTA_MODULE]

Kostenlos starten

Schließen auch Sie sich den Tausenden von Unternehmen an, die ihre Daten mithilfe von Fivetran zentralisieren und transformieren.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Data insights
Data insights

GigaOm benchmark report: Fivetran HVR vs Qlik Replicate

GigaOm benchmark report: Fivetran HVR vs Qlik Replicate

March 4, 2024
March 4, 2024
GigaOm benchmark report: Fivetran HVR vs Qlik Replicate
At 200 GB/hour, Fivetran HVR produced 27x lower latency and proved 25% less costly than Qlik Replicate.

A new report released by technology research firm GigaOm compares replication latency and total cost of ownership between Fivetran HVR and Qlik Replicate.

GigaOm performed a series of tests on both Fivetran HVR and Qlik Replicate to compare latency and total cost of ownership across multiple change data volumes when replicating from an Oracle database source to a Snowflake cloud data warehouse destination. The results favored Fivetran HVR for both latency and total cost of ownership:

  • Fivetran HVR showed 27 times lower latency than Qlik Replicate at 200GB/hour of change data 
  • Fivetran HVR is 25% less expensive than Qlik Replicate at 200GB/hour of change data
“These results highlight what we’ve already known: Fivetran is the leader in data integration, especially when it comes to performance and cost. We are constantly innovating and improving our database replication capabilities to ensure we meet the needs of our customers across any architecture, cloud platform or deployment requirements.”
- Helge Scheil, EVP - Engineering

Fivetran has made significant investments in replication latency, high-volume throughput and support for additional architectures and deployment models. Fivetran offers multiple database replication solutions to move data from over 15 database and data warehouse sources such as Oracle, PostgreSQL and SQL Server to address the needs of large enterprises utilizing their data — whether on-premises or in the cloud — for business insights, predictive analytics and AI/ML workloads.

[CTA_MODULE]

GigaOm report testing details and specifications

The benchmark tests compared Fivetran HVR and Qlik Replicate at high rates of change data per hour. Each platform was compared using an Oracle database installed on an AWS EC2 instance with HammerDB creating a TPC-C-like database plus additional wide tables to expand the amount of change data produced. GigaOm used the following specifications for their EC2, HammerDB, Oracle and Snowflake instances:

Configuration Iterations
Oracle EC2 instance sizes r5b.4xlarge (16 vCPU, 128 GB RAM)
r5b.8xlarge (32 vCPU, 256 GB RAM)
Snowflake warehouse size Small (2 credits/hour)
Oracle tablespaces 1, 2 and 3
TPC-C scale factors 20, 30 and 30 warehouses
HammerDB virtual user threads 1, 2, 5, 10, 20 and 30
Test durations 15 and 60 minutes
Source: GigaOm 2024

Each platform was configured based on vendor-documented steps and specifications to ensure optimal replication performance. The platforms were tested at three change data volume rates: 50GB/hr, 100GB/hr and 200GB/hr to mimic enterprise-scale scenarios using the below configurations.

Configuration Qlik Replicate Fivetran HVR
Version November 23 6.1.5
Release date November 14, 2023 November 21, 2023
Installation download AWS Marketplace Fivetran Account Dashboard
Hub operating system Microsoft Windows Server 2019 Base Ubuntu 22.04
EC2 instance size m5a.4xlarge c6id.4xlarge
EC2 CPU + memory 16 vCPU, 64 GB RAM 16 vCPU, 32 GB RAM
EC2 On-demand rate $0.6880 $0.8064
Hub disk storage EBS gp3 3,000 IOPS EC2 locally-attached SSD
Additional settings N/A CycleByteLimit=0
Source: GigaOm 2024

GigaOm report results and conclusions

The GigaOm testing analyzed two important parts of evaluating data integration platforms: replication latency and total cost of ownership. As the need for real-time data grows, lower replication latency can power agile insights and business decisions. Similarly, enterprises need to make smart budgeting decisions with the acquisition of new software platforms. Therefore, the ideal data integration platform should have low replication latency and an inexpensive total cost of ownership.

Fivetran HVR proved to have lower replication latency and lower total cost of ownership than Qlik Replicate at enterprise-level change data volumes. As the rate of change data increased, Fivetran HVR replication latency steadily, yet minimally increased from just over 2 minutes at 50GB/hour to barely more than 3 minutes at 200GB/hour. Meanwhile, Qlik Replicate replication latency increased exponentially from 2.8 minutes at 50GB/hour to over 83 minutes at 200GB/hour. This resulted in Fivetran HVR having 27 times lower latency at 200GB/hour than Qlik Replicate.

Redo log rate Qlik latency Fivetran latency Fivetran advantage
50 GB/hour 2.8 min 2.1 min 1.3x
100 GB/hour 15.3 min 2.5 min 6x
200 GB/hour 83.4 min 3.1 min 27x
Source: GigaOm 2024

GigaOm compared the cost of owning both Fivetran HVR and Qlik Replicate over the course of one year. This calculation included each platform’s licensing and usage costs, EC2 instance and Snowflake costs when syncing data once per hour, 24/7. 

The total cost of ownership of Fivetran HVR replicating 200GB/hour of change data for one year is $138,882, significantly lower than Qlik Replicate at $171,530.

Fivetran continues to invest in database replication innovation

With innovations such as log-free change data capture for databases and support for on-premises, hybrid and cloud deployments, Fivetran continues to push ahead in the database replication space. Fivetran has made significant strides in latency, throughput and compute costs for database replication to ensure enterprises can make valuable insights at lower costs than the competition. 

“As we continue to innovate, our goal is to efficiently and securely handle every database replication scenario,” Kiran Prabhakara, VP Product Management of Databases at Fivetran, says. “We continue to invest in new features and capabilities for our database connectors such as hybrid deployment options and additional replication methods.” 

The GigaOm report demonstrates that Fivetran is a leader and innovator in data integration, moving data more efficiently and cost-effectively than the competition. Enterprises like Autodesk, Condé Nast, JetBlue and Morgan Stanley derive considerable value from using Fivetran to replicate data, fuel analytics, drive operational efficiencies and power innovation. Fivetran is at the forefront of database replication addressing customers’ needs for faster throughput, higher volumes and lower latency at an affordable and sustainable price point.

[CTA_MODULE]

Read the full report to understand the total cost of ownership and data replication latency implications of Fivetran HVR vs. Qlik Replicate.
Learn more
Read the full report to understand the total cost of ownership and data replication latency implications of Fivetran HVR vs. Qlik Replicate.
Learn more

Verwandte Beiträge

Fivetran vs. Stitch comparison
Data insights

Fivetran vs. Stitch comparison

Beitrag lesen
Fivetran vs. Attunity (Qlik Replicate)
Data insights

Fivetran vs. Attunity (Qlik Replicate)

Beitrag lesen
Fivetran vs. Hevo Data: Features, pricing, services and more
Data insights

Fivetran vs. Hevo Data: Features, pricing, services and more

Beitrag lesen
No items found.
Announcing Fivetran Managed Data Lake Service
Blog

Announcing Fivetran Managed Data Lake Service

Beitrag lesen
Fivetran Product Update: June 2024
Blog

Fivetran Product Update: June 2024

Beitrag lesen
Implementing a data fabric: From silos to insights
Blog

Implementing a data fabric: From silos to insights

Beitrag lesen

Kostenlos starten

Schließen auch Sie sich den Tausenden von Unternehmen an, die ihre Daten mithilfe von Fivetran zentralisieren und transformieren.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.