No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

OpenText Trading Grid vs Skyvia comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 1, 2026

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

OpenText Trading Grid
Ranking in Cloud Data Integration
39th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (14th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (25th)
Skyvia
Ranking in Cloud Data Integration
29th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Data Integration (63rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Cloud Data Integration category, the mindshare of OpenText Trading Grid is 0.9%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Skyvia is 1.5%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Data Integration Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Skyvia1.5%
OpenText Trading Grid0.9%
Other97.6%
Cloud Data Integration
 

Featured Reviews

VARUNKUMAR - PeerSpot reviewer
Mgr Value Chain Integration/EDI at a non-tech company with 10,001+ employees
Industry-leading, easy to implement, and has good mapping specification guidelines
The good thing about OpenText is that we have the mapping specification guideline available, which is not there in a solution like SEEBURGER. Whenever you want to take a decision to move away from OpenText, you have already documented your mapping and what your mapping looks like. So you go to the next provider, provide them with that mapping specification, and it'll be very easy for them to develop a new map instead of just taking the data - input data, output data - and then looking for how the data is getting transformed. So you have the mapping spec level which is a very good feature of OpenText, which we do not have in SEEBURGER. It's very hard to move from SEEBURGER. The solution is easy to implement. It's stable and reliable. They are the industry leaders in the integration space.
RH
CTO & Developer at a consultancy with self employed
The product works, is simple to use, and is reliable.
Error handling. This has caused me many problems in the past. When an error occurs, the event on the connection that is called does not seem to behave as documented. If I attempt a retry or opt not to display an error dialog, it does it anyway. In all fairness, I have never reported this. I think it is more important that a unique error code is passed to the error event that identifies a uniform type of error that occurred, such as ecDisconnect, eoInvalidField. It is very hard to find what any of the error codes currently passed actually mean. A list would be great for each database engine. Trying to catch an exception without displaying the UniDAC error message is impossible, no matter how you modify the parameters in the OnError of the TUniConnection object. I have already implemented the following things myself. They are suggestions rather than specific requests. Copy Datasets: This contains an abundance of redundant options. I think that a facility to copy one dataset to another in a single call would be handy. Redundancy: I am currently working on this. I have extended the TUniConnection to have an additional property called FallbackConnection. If the TUniConnection goes offline, the connection attempts to connect the FallbackConnection. If successful, it then sets the Connection properties of all live UniDatasets in the app to the FallbackConnection and re-opens them if necessary. The extended TUniConnection holds a list of datasets that were created. Each dataset is responsible for registering itself with the connection. This is a highly specific feature. It supports an offline mode that is found in mission critical/point of sale solutions. I have never seen it implement before in any DACs, but I think it is a really unique feature with a big impact. Dataset to JSON/XML: A ToSql function on a dataset that creates a full SQL Text statement with all parameters converted to text (excluding blobs) and included in the returned string. Extended TUniScript:- TMyUniScript allows me to add lines of text to a script using the normal dataset functions, Script.Append, Script.FieldByName(‘xxx’).AsString := ‘yyy’, Script.AddToScript and finally Script.Post, then Script.Commit. The AddToScript builds the SQL text statement and appends it to the script using #e above. Record Size Calculation. It would be great if UniDac could estimate the size of a particular record from a query or table. This could be used to automatically set the packet fetch/request count based on the size of the Ethernet packets on the local area network. This I believe would increase performance and reduce network traffic for returning larger datasets. I am aware that this would also be a unique feature to UniDac but would gain a massive performance enhancement. I would suggest setting the packet size on the TUniConnection which would effect all linked datasets.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The good thing about OpenText is that we have the mapping specification guideline available, which is not there in a solution like SEEBURGER."
"The solution is easy to implement."
"For what it offers, I think this solution is a must for any Delphi programmer."
 

Cons

"Technical support needs to be better."
"Technical support isn't the greatest. The transparency is less than you sometimes need."
"Error handling has caused me many problems in the past; when an error occurs, the event on the connection that is called does not seem to behave as documented."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
12%
Construction Company
12%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Construction Company
15%
Performing Arts
15%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Outsourcing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Also Known As

Trading Grid, GXS Trading Grid
Skyvia, Skyvia Data Integration
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Autoliv, Hella, Hutchinson, Michelin
Boeing, Sony, Honda, Oracle, BMW, Samsung
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), SnapLogic, Informatica and others in Cloud Data Integration. Updated: October 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.