Snowflake Reviews

We use Snowflake for data warehousing.

We would like to see more security including more masking and more encryption at the database level.

We have been using Snowflake for three months.

Stability-wise, this product is good.

Snowflake is quite scalable. We have four people who are using it.

So far, technical support has been good.

The initial setup is very simple.

My advice for anybody who is implementing Snowflake is to start small, then prove out the value and you can grow.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Snowflake is used for very large data, such as in the case where tables might contain 600 to 700 million records.

It's ultra-fast at handling queries, which is what we find very convenient.

The pricing and licensing model is good.

Snowflake has support for stored procedures, but it is not that powerful. They have a lot of limitations. For example, it is really basic and there are limitations on subqueries.

The functions are not very good. Improving this would help to make sure data manipulation much easier. Right now, the inbuilt stored procedures and functions are all Java-based.

I Have been using SnowFlake for about five months.

We have approximately 10 people in the organization who are using Snowflake.

The technical support is very good.

We use Snowflake in conjunction with Matillion, which is another AWS-based ETL tool. It is being used as a bridge between our on-premises data and Snowflake. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. You simply log in and start using it.

When it comes to deployment, you can choose between the AWS and Azure cloud. We chose AWS.

It is easy to create an instance and you can do it yourself if you have an AWS account. Snowflake will give you the connection ID and other relevant details.

The pricing is flexible in that, for example, if I run a query and it is slow then I can increase the processing power while it is still running, and they charge more for the time. The cost is on a per-query basis.

If you're running with a base processor, called a warehouse, the query might cost 1.0 cents. But, if my query is slow and I want to increase the speed, the next level adds a little more cost to that.

On average, with the number of queries that we run, we pay approximately $200 USD per month.

Recently, we have been doing a review of Redshift. However, we finally decided to go with Snowflake.

My advice for anybody who is considering Snowflake is that it is a really good product, especially if you are having issues with Big Data. It is not good for a typical OLTP environment, such as a small table.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We work with multiple customers who were asking for this and other similar solutions. We've since had several team members certified in Snowflake and we have a certified team working with that solution and keeping up to date with developments. I'm the general manager of the company and we are implementers. 

Snowflake has its own features in comparison to other similar solutions like Exadata. This gives it huge competitive power. It has a very good interface tool with its own benefits and features which are really useful for our needs from a computation and storage perspective. I think this solution provides the best potential of any data warehousing product where they choose to use Snowflake instead of Oracle or DBII. The product can be leveraged with respect to better performance, auto tuning, competition and performance. From an architectural perspective, the solution has all the ingredients it requires. 

We've come to realize that for many customers, pricing of this solution is an issue. Maintaining Snowflake clusters is challenging and cost intensive. Reporting could also be improved. Any data that moves out of Snowflake is being cached. If I have 400 to 500 end users, with 100 or 200 reports on a daily basis, all the reports will be cached. It's a matter of ensuring that costs can be optimized. The combination of Red Warescape plus Snowflake is a combination from the design and development perspective. But the combination from the reporting perspective to micro strategy on top of Snowflake could be a better feature, so there's a combination that has to be considered.

I've been using this solution for about 10 months. 

Our customers tell us that it is a stable solution. 

We're working in 32 countries with enterprise size customers. We're still waiting to see what happens with that level of scalability and how the solution performs. If this product can be further fine-tuned or optimized in such a way that it becomes a very good fit for the Azure platform, that would be great. 

They provide very good documentation on implementation design and development perspectives. 

I think the initial setup is straightforward. Anyone who has worked on these types of solutions will pick it up quickly.

It really depends on the nature of the implementation. If it's a small or medium sized company, we focus more on the pricing. If that can be brought down, I think Snowflake has a high potential that it can meet and can create a big name for itself in the big data cloud implementation platform. It has all the features. It already has all the complementary features to deal with the challenges. Those are built in and taken care of. It could be on Google cloud, or it could be on Azure or it could be on Amazon.

I'll rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

I work as a data scientist and our primary use of Snowflake is for machine learning.

Recently, we were trying to extract data to determine the best configuration settings for one of our products.

As it is SQL-like, it is easy to write queries.

The querying speed is fast.

We would like to have an on-premises deployment option that has the same features, including scalability.

I have been working with Snowflake for six or seven months.

From what I have seen and heard, I think that Snowflake is pretty stable. I haven't faced any such problems, myself. I am not aware of the entirety of the lifecycle, but I haven't heard any complaints.

My impression is that this product is pretty scalable.

I have not been in contact with technical support, although my team has been and they are okay with it. My impression is that they are good.

The pricing for Snowflake is competitive.

My advice for anybody who is considering implementing Snowflake is that from a user's standpoint, it is a good product. Having a database in a cloud setup means that you don't have to scale and it has got many features already included.

For our use case, we found this Snowflake was good enough and did not need any enhancements. I recommend using it.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We primarily use the solution in order to have the daily transactions of trades. It's to manipulate and find out the benchmark of every broker and institutional manager.

The solution's most valuable aspect is the ability to process the bulk amount of data and try to clone the database. We try to clone the production database. Instead of syncing the whole database, we can just clone it up and start working on it. Basically, the cloning and the database are very user-friendly.

The solution is very stable.

Right now, Snowflake doesn't have any analytical functions, especially in comparison to Oracle and other databases. The analytical performance needs to improve. It would be ideal if Snowflake was able to use the analytical functions, and what we have in the relational database. That would be really helpful. 

They don't have any SLAs in place. It would be better if they did.

I've been working with the solution for two years now. The company, however, has been using it for three years at this point.

The solution is quite stable. It's reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. There aren't bugs or glitches.

The solution is definitely scalable. We're able to add nodes to grow it out when we need to. If an organization needs to expand the solution, they can do so easily. We find it to be very reliable.

There are about 300 people using the solution at this time. We don't plan on increasing usage at this time.

Technical support is very, very good. It's a responsive and knowledgable team. We're quite satisfied with the level of service we receive.

That said, Snowflake technical support doesn't have any SLAs. If they had a small amount of SLAs, then it would be helpful for us to clear or solve any production issues, etc. that we may run into.

We need about 50-60 people to maintain the solution.

Snowflake's pricing is a bit higher than other competitors.

We were looking at Amazon Redshift previously. However, we decided that Snowflake was more reliable and scalable.

We're a customer. We don't have a business relationship with the solution.

Users considering adding the solution should understand that Snowflake can be used only for transactional processing, not for analytical processing. If they want to go for transaction processing, they can go for Snowflake and if they want to go for analytical processing, they should look at or go for an Oracle database.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We use the solution for data. We like that there are so many different formats and many structures for analysis.

The architecture we'll be using due to being on the cloud will assure we have less to do. There will be no indexing, for example. Everything's managed by the servers. That way, we can focus on the data warehouse and on the data.

From a data warehouse perspective, it's an excellent all-round solution. It's very complete.

The user interface continues to be an issue, especially when we need to get data out of Snowflake. It's very easy to get data in, but it's not too easy to get it out or extract it.

It would be nice to have some built-in solutions that would solve. for example, how to delete data from a customer when they request it.

There needs to be stronger data protection.

I've been using the solution for just a bit less than a year at this point.

Our clients have been very impressed with the solution's overall stability.

The scalability is incredible. It's the best I've ever seen. Organizations can scale easily. I can scale up four times faster as well. Something that usually takes 60 minutes can be done in 15 or 20 minutes. It's faster and I save costs because I only pay for the time. Even though I'm paying "more" I end up saving money with this time based costing.

I've only contacted technical support a handful of times. I have, however, found them to be very savvy product-wise and very helpful. Their technical support staff are all experts. They know the product extremely well.

The initial setup is very straightforward. I wouldn't describe it as complex.

How long it takes to deploy depends on your knowledge and your background. It's difficult to judge. I've been working for 20 years now with data warehouses. For me, it was very easy because of my extensive background. However, it depends on what someone knows, and their technical background. It can be difficult for others who maybe don't have as much knowledge or first-hand experience with warehouses.

We're partners with Snowflake. We support our customers and can help them implement it as necessary.

The solution has an excellent pricing strategy. The costs are open and transparent. If you don't use it, you don't pay for it. It's that simple.

We're partners with Snowflake.

The difference between Snowflake, and, for example, Azure, is that there is real separation between the computer and storage. Snowflake is the only one that's really separate and it's much simpler to scale or shift data. It makes everything much easier.

One of the best options on the market right now is to have a cloud-only setup. Not everyone is using the cloud, but everyone will catch up.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. If the user interface was better and they had a few more features and did some useability tweaks it would be perfect. Also, it's hard to get the data out of Snowflake, and that's a real issue design-wise.

We use this product basically for developing an IoT (Internet of Things). Currently, we are sending data from our S3 (Simple Storage Service) storage. In the future, we are planning to directly stream data to Snowflake.

In terms of features, we have not yet explored the product completely. So we are still in the proof of concept phase. As of now, the product meets our preliminary requirements. The snapshot feature is good and the rollback feature is good. That is why we have the product and these are the key things we need.

The recovery process is very simple and very user-friendly as well. The constraint files could be improved. But the most important things are there. Also, the interface is good to work with and user-friendly.

If I had to say what needs improvement, in my experience is that the availability is a problem. Availability should be high and has to be enhanced.

I still have not explored all of the existing features. Because I have not been deeply involved with using the program it is hard to say what else is missing or what I would need.

We have just explored the product for a few months.

The stability of Snowflake is very good.

Scalability is very good and very simple.

Within the company, we currently have a total of fewer than 50 people using the product. Their general roles vary from data analyst to data scientist, to IT professionals, and maybe one or two of the upper managers.

I tried using technical support once and they were very helpful. But after that, I have not had any reason to explore the support services.

The initial setup was simple.

The implementation was done by the vendor.

Before choosing to work with Snowflake we looked at virtual solutions and we looked at Redshift, we looked at Qubole and a couple of other cloud options. Earlier when we did a mining site, I was working with Alteryx, so I was already familiar with that product and its capabilities to use for comparison. We decided to go with Snowflake because it seemed mature and had what we wanted.

My advice to someone who is looking at Snowflake is that if they are looking at analytics tools in addition to warehousing and certain advantages of cloud computing, then I would suggest Snowflake. But if they are just looking for the warehousing part where you will later just use another solution on top of it, then I would not suggest Snowflake.

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Snowflake as an eight or nine. Let's say 8.5.

The primary use case is big data warehouses.

• Excellent performance
• Very easy to use
• Amazing UI

The most valuable feature is the snapshot database. In one second, you can just take a snapshot of the database for test purposes.

One year.

Basically, it is not cheap.

We are a big data company. We have many thousands of devices deployed from our customer base. These devices upload data, on an hourly basis, to a central storage. Next, we run some ETF processes that crunch and process data, then we store that data in a structured way on Snowflake.

Over the past six months, it has been more of a development project.

I am using the latest version.

• I like the idea that you can assign roles and responsibilities, limiting access to data. That has been very interesting to us. 
• The robustness of the system is very useful to us. 
• The availability of the system. 

We would like Snowflake to be able to do inter-cloud migrations. That would be great. I want to be able to switch clouds.

Six months.

It is stable.

If you go with one cloud provider, you can't switch.

We have very few users. There is just a very limited number who are mostly developers. We did not roll out the end product. We did not roll out product and services based on that foundation/infrastructure yet.

I have not personally contacted technical support.

We previously used HPE and Microsoft Insight. We switched to Snowflake for the availability, security, and loading times.

The initial setup was very straightforward. It was very quick. The complexity came from our specific use case scenario.

We also looked at HPE and Microsoft Insight.

Analyze your user scenario. If your scenario is managing large amounts of data in extremely, different environments in a structured way, then this is a good option.

I would rate this solution as an eight (out of 10).

The primary use case for Snowflake is in our data warehouse project. We have a private DW and whoever has the credentials can access it. I am a data integration developer and we are using ETL tools to extract the data from different source systems and then load it in the data warehouse.

Snowflake is the latest technology. It has great flexibility whenever we are loading data and performs ELT (extract, load, transform) techniques instead of ETL.

This solution automatically performs micro-partitioning when the data is loaded. This creates a dynamic partition and based on the cluster, the performance is fast and really impressive.

Snowflake is using MPP, massively parallel processing techniques, which is a great feature. It saves developers time and allows us to focus more on client requirements.

It is difficult in some cases to perform ETL and this is something that should be included. As it is now, I use Informatica PowerCenter to load data from on-premises to the Snowflake cloud-based data warehouse. If this could be done by Snowflake directly, without an external integration tool, then it would become a full package. It would be awesome.

They do have a native connector to connect with integration tools for loading data, but it would be much better to have the functionality built-in. We would like to be able to just write an SQL query and do our work.

I have been working with Snowflake for six months.

We have not had any major issues with stability.

Snowflake does not require manual scaling because it does it for you. Developers just need to load the data and process the query. That's it. The developer's job is not to spend time improving performance, as it was with an on-premises solution. We had to do the partitioning, collect the stats, and everything else. In the case of this cloud-based solution, it doesn't require as much work. Instead, we can focus on the queries.

We are planning to increase our usage of Snowflake.

I have been in contact with technical support many times and it was awesome. I got great support. Whenever I needed anything they were ready to help me out, which was nice.

I have experience with Informatica PowerCenter and Oracle. PowerCenter uses ETL techniques instead of ELT. Oracle does not automatically perform micro-partitioning. Instead, you have to partition manually and it is a static partition.

Prior to Snowflake, I was using an on-premises data warehouse. Snowflake is the first experience I have had with a cloud-based data warehouse. It is an awesome tool.

There is no need to install this software, which is the best part. It doesn't require any maintenance, and although DBA support is required, it is much less compared to an on-premises solution. This type of cloud-based solution has no requirement for software, hardware, or maintenance because everything is managed by Snowflake's system.

The only assistance I had during the setup was from the integration tool, Informatica PowerCenter. This was used to export our on-premises data from Oracle and import it to Snowflake on the cloud.

You pay based on the data that you are storing in the data warehouse and there are no maintenance costs.

This is an awesome tool, but there is room for improvement in terms of integration. Also, in terms of management, nothing is perfect and everything can be improved.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.