Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

FME vs Talend Open Studio comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 19, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

FME
Ranking in Data Integration
23rd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Talend Open Studio
Ranking in Data Integration
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
50
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Data Integration (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Data Integration category, the mindshare of FME is 1.8%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Talend Open Studio is 4.3%, down from 5.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Data Integration
 

Featured Reviews

Alan Bloor - PeerSpot reviewer
Great for handling large volumes of data, but it is priced a bit high
When I do coding, I think about every single function. Some of these functions can be very elementary, like doing a substring or some capitalization. But FME removes all that coding because it's a transformer, so the time to develop an application to get to a point where you're producing results is decreased massively. It used to take weeks and months to develop software, and now I can use something like FME, and within one day, we get results. We can look at and validate data. We make minor subtle changes to the workbenches to improve it. We can share the workbenches. We don't have to use GitHub or anything else.
Costin Marzea - PeerSpot reviewer
Allows you to develop your own components and can be used as an OEM
Sometimes, scalability is part of planning. It depends on what you mean by scalability. People talk a lot about it, but scalability is not always about system functionality. Sometimes, it may be planning the job you're doing. If you want to split it into several jobs or servers, you don't actually have to have it built in as a functionality. You can create a job using a loop, which runs and controls several jobs in a loop that may be controlled. Scaling should not always be part of the infrastructure based on whether the engine can scale or not. I think it's your plan or project that should scale and split, and you can define these parameters. These parameters include how many servers you want to run or how many executions you want to do on different parts of the data. It's not always an issue of the engine running. Sometimes, your database should be configured to support partitioning. The product may scale very well without partitioning, but if the basic response is very slow, you didn't solve the problem. You should solve the problems at a higher level, not just at the execution level. They should be solved at the database level and communication level, and you should have firewalls. We are trying to add to the open source the ability to generate code for containers and Kubernetes that exist in the subscription version. Once you do this, Kubernetes will take care of the scaling, so there is no problem.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"It has standard plug-ins available for different data sources."
"The most valuable feature of FME is the graphical user interface. There is nothing better. It is very easy to debug because you can see all steps where there are failures. Overall the software is easy to optimize a process."
"From my reseller perspective, the best features in FME are the ease of operation and the fact that it works."
"All spatial features are unrivaled, and the possibility to execute them based on a scheduled trigger, manual, e-mail, Websocket, tweet, file/directory change or virtually any trigger is most valuable."
"It has a very friendly user interface. You don't need to use a lot of code. For us that's the most important aspect about it. Also, it has a lot of connectors and few forms. It has a strong facial aspect. It can do a lot of facial analysis."
"We make minor subtle changes to the workbenches to improve it. We can share the workbenches. We don't have to use GitHub or anything else."
"FME is spatially aware and understands how to deal with the conversion of spatial objects and their attributes."
"The data integration aspect of the solution is excellent."
"It is easy to use and covers most of the functions needed. We can use the code without any extra effort. The open source is very good. They have the same commercials with additional connectors. The graphical design environment is also very easy."
"The most valuable feature for me when it comes to this solution is that it's easy to use."
"This is a user-friendly solution that is easy to use."
"We have contacted their technical support. They are great. They offer very professional help. If I need some technical answer, they are very professional. They are quick, professional, and very accurate."
"The API integration and big data approach are very good because of how you extract data from JSP files or big data web repositories like MongoDB."
"A helpful feature for us is the integration with NoSQL databases."
"The rapidity of integration with data may be one of the valuable features."
 

Cons

"FME's price needs improvement for the African market."
"Improvements could be made to mapping presentations."
"FME can improve the geographical transformation. I've had some problems with the geographical transformations, but it's probably mostly because I'm not the most skilled geographer in-house. The solution requires some in-depth knowledge to perform some functions."
"To get a higher rating, it would have to improve the price and the associated scalability. These are the main issues."
"The one thing that always appears in the community is the ability to make really easy loops to loop through data efficiently. That needs to be added at some point."
"We are looking at the possibility of using Glue instead of FME, using the native AWS product."
"The stability of the solution could improve when running jobs. There can be errors when running projects but in the end, it works well and the errors do not impact the result."
"It gets the job done but it's a bit slow."
"When faced with a challenge, such as the necessity to link up with an unconventional data source like the legacy Cyprus Vision database that wasn't inherently supported by Talend, I had to resort to writing Python code to establish the connection."
"It is complicated to understand the configuration process for email components."
"The product could be more intuitive."
"The solution should offer better integration with other products."
"Multiple products are there within the product suite. That can be actually trimmed down."
"The solution should integrate with a version control system in the subscription versions to make it easy to work with and manage the version control."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"FME Server used to cost £10,000; now it can cost over £100,000."
"We used the standard licensing for our use of FME. The cost was approximately €15,000 annually. We always welcome less expensive solutions, if the solution could be less expensive it would be helpful."
"The product's price is reasonable."
"Right now, because we're using the open-source version, there's no cost."
"There are many versions available and one is open-sourced which is free."
"For Talend Open Studio, there is a need to make yearly payments towards the licensing cost. Talend Open Studio is a bit expensive, in my opinion."
"Pricing is always a challenge. It is quite an expensive model, but because the platform is so simple to use, we haven't had to purchase any additional licenses."
"The cost, particularly in Africa, is quite high."
"It is an open-source tool which means it is a free solution."
"Pricing and licensing are fairly straightforward. It is reasonably priced and managed."
"Talend is free and you can download it."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Government
31%
Energy/Utilities Company
13%
Computer Software Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about FME?
We make minor subtle changes to the workbenches to improve it. We can share the workbenches. We don't have to use GitHub or anything else.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for FME?
The pricing is really bad. Last year, they rebranded the whole pricing structure. It used to be moderately priced at about £400 per user per year. Now they've changed the whole thing, and it's expe...
What needs improvement with FME?
The one thing that always appears in the community is the ability to make really easy loops to loop through data efficiently. That needs to be added at some point. There must be a technical or comm...
How does Talend Open Studio compare with AWS Glue?
We reviewed AWS Glue before choosing Talend Open Studio. AWS Glue is the managed ETL (extract, transform, and load) from Amazon Web Services. AWS Glue enables AWS users to create and manage jobs in...
What do you like most about Talend Open Studio?
It is easy to use and covers most of the functions needed. We can use the code without any extra effort. The open source is very good. They have the same commercials with additional connectors. The...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Open Studio
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Shell, US Department of Commerce, PG&E, BC Hydro, City of Vancouver, Enel, Iowa DoT, San Antonio Water System
Almerys, BF&M, Findus
Find out what your peers are saying about FME vs. Talend Open Studio and other solutions. Updated: August 2025.
865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.