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

Riversand MDMCenter vs SAP Master Data Governance comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 4, 2025

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

Riversand MDMCenter
Ranking in Master Data Management (MDM) Software
12th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SAP Master Data Governance
Ranking in Master Data Management (MDM) Software
1st
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
29
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Master Data Management (MDM) Software category, the mindshare of Riversand MDMCenter is 2.4%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SAP Master Data Governance is 11.1%, down from 20.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Master Data Management (MDM) Software Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
SAP Master Data Governance11.1%
Riversand MDMCenter2.4%
Other86.5%
Master Data Management (MDM) Software
 

Featured Reviews

SS
Senior Solution Architect at Intraedge
A user-friendly data management software with a valuable matching feature
Integration could be better. Riversand is majorly focusing on only the MDM hub part. They don't have their own integration platform. We have to rely on a third-party integration partner. They say this is the format, and it's the client's responsibility to bring the data into their required format. They have to have an integration partner and develop their integration capabilities. It's not so flexible to read any data format or system, for example, SAP. They don't have a connector.
UdayReddy - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead at LTI - Larsen & Toubro Infotech
Detailed technical support and data integration capabilities create seamless user experience
Regarding SAP Master Data Governance, there is significant room for improvement particularly concerning the replication types. For example, when a vendor master is created in Ariba and a request is submitted from the Ariba system, SAP Ariba directs it to MDG. MDG verifies the details entirely through PI/PO or CPI. Once MDG verifies the data, the request is submitted to the S/4HANA system, the target. After a final approval at all levels, the vendor number is generated, and the vendor code gets passed from source to target system. This number is available in both the Ariba integration in the systems and in SAP BPT code, as well as the S/4HANA system.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I like their matching feature, and the survivorship rules are very strong. I also like their out-of-box reports, data quality dashboards, and more. Those are also very handy and helpful. Internally, I like the kind of configurations that we can create, validations, and enhancements. Those configurations are pretty straightforward and useful. It's a user-friendly tool that is very cool."
"It's a stable solution. I have no complaints."
"Has a good user interface and the ability to update large sets of products quickly."
"The ability to identify and manage duplicate data is valuable. The solution automatically checks for duplication possibilities based on criteria like name matching."
"Pricing for SAP Master Data Governance in the latest scenario depends on each version, offering a robust and user-friendly application."
"SAP MDG has extensive data models and good integration with upstream and downstream systems."
"The main purpose of SAP Master Data Governance is maintaining a single source of truth for enterprise data, and it helps a lot and works quite well."
"Useful for building master data."
"SAP MDG has built-in integration capabilities with multiple systems/streams. We can also create custom interfaces if needed."
"This is an all-around good product."
"We've found the solution to be quite flexible."
 

Cons

"The ability to create bespoke workflows could be improved."
"Integration could be better. Riversand is majorly focusing on only the MDM hub part. They don't have their own integration platform. We have to rely on a third-party integration partner. They say this is the format, and it's the client's responsibility to bring the data into their required format. They have to have an integration partner and develop their integration capabilities. It's not so flexible to read any data format or system, for example, SAP. They don't have a connector."
"The solution does not have a good match and search capability."
"The user experience can be improved."
"It could be more user-friendly."
"Lacks some features that are available in other solutions."
"It does not ensure data matches after system upgrades."
"The documentation provided for the MDG extensions by Utopia could be improved."
"RiverFront is a more modern and cost-effective solution compared to MDG. It is flexible and designed to handle big data, which MDG does not support well."
"Bill of materials (BOM) creation in manufacturing needs to be enhanced in SAP Master Data Governance."
"The user interface is not user-friendly."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Riversand MDMCenter isn't expensive. I believe their price is in the mid-range."
"We have an enterprise license. The whole SAP landscape pricing model is based on the number of users, and the number of transactions. The price could be better, there is always room for improvement in the price."
"The solution is costly."
"The cost of the product is not ideal."
"SAP Master Data Governance is an expensive solution."
"SAP Master Data Governance is a licensed product. While there might be no upfront cost for the MDG component itself, you still need to pay for user authorizations."
"SAP Master Data Governance is an expensive product."
"The cloud solution is subscription-based, it is paid monthly or quarterly. If the solution is on-premises, it is a one-time fee. As far as I am aware there are no additional costs."
"The pricing is a bit too high."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Master Data Management (MDM) Software solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
9%
Energy/Utilities Company
9%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise21
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about SAP Master Data Governance?
We've managed tens of thousands of updates within 30 to 60 minutes, and we can also replicate these changes to all connected systems.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SAP Master Data Governance?
The challenge with SAP MDG is not only the cost but the resources. The skills required are niche in the market, and while you can purchase the product either one time or on a subscription basis, th...
What needs improvement with SAP Master Data Governance?
I don't see any disadvantages or areas for improvement that I can think of, to be honest. It's sometimes challenging when you have to develop custom fields, but then usually it works, even when dep...
 

Also Known As

No data available
SAP MDG
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Topco, PC Connection, Balsam Brands, Nivea, Eucerin, Tine, Schneider Electric, Miller, ExxonMobil, Baxter, ConocoPhillips, Cameron International, Chevron, Husky Energy, Saint-Gobain, Fingerhut
Convergent IS, CHIO Aachen, Dell, Hamburg Port Authority (HPA), City of Boston, Mozzart, Mitsui Knowledge Industry (MKI), AOK Bundesverband, eBay
Find out what your peers are saying about Riversand MDMCenter vs. SAP Master Data Governance and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.