+1 619 822 1745 [email protected]

Total Cost of Ownership

User Comments

Corepoint

  • “No surprises, and everything we needed was included in the implementation package. Costs are about on par with the other major engine.”
  • “Pricing model makes it reasonable for smaller organizations. Larger ones take a hit on the per connection pricing (they have no “all you can eat” model).”
  • “Corepoint does a great job of presenting all costs without surprises. They are quite flexible with working out methods for purchasing. Corepoint is very cost effective with utilizing analyst time to design, develop, and implement interfaces. There is no requirement for specific programming language knowledge like Java, TCL, etc. The biggest cost outside of the engine purchase is purchasing SQL Server.”
  • “I find the TCO for Corepoint in line with budgeted expectations for ongoing maintenance and support of a high quality software system. The initial investment for licensure of Corepoint was also inline with most other comparable interface solutions. The difference for me was the quality of the product and vendor support along with ease of use and reliability.”

Cloverleaf

  • “The upfront costs were significant. Finding experienced Cloverleaf developers can also be costly. I wouldn’t consider the maintenance costs to be significant or different than what we expected.”
  • “Cost effective based on the number of threads we run (unlimited license).”
  • “Every added functionality is an additional cost. Maintenance fees have become ridiculous.”

Ensemble

  • “Reliability makes the product cost effective, however, the initial deployment and ongoing license is costly.”
  • “As the product evolved, some capabilities that should be part of the core, became additional modules requiring additional licensing and costs.”
  • “It’s a bit pricey, but worth it for the savings we have incurred from splitting feeds.”

Mirth

  • “If a support contract is not needed then there is no cost. Talent has not been difficult to find. Server requirements are light.”
  • “Being open-sourced the basic packages are free to download. There is a great deal of information that is also free from the vendor as far as education. Support at the premium level was also a lot less that other engine software.”
  • “The initial download is free, but support is required to get the application plug-ins and to obtain support. Good TCO, training is needed to better understand the breath of the product.”
  • “This is the main advantage of the open source version. No cost for a lot of features.”

Rhapsody

  • “The licensing is tricky with Orion. After a certain number of communication points, you either have to pay for an unlimited license, which is outside of what the organization is willing to pay, or find alternatives to Rhapsody to do things such as file transfers. So instead of being able to buy a few more communication point licenses, we had to buy another product to handle our file transfers.”
  • “An engine that does everything you need it to do is not going to be cheap. However, compared to the others we looked at and for the work that it is doing for us I feel that it is a reasonable business cost.”
  • “We arranged a purchase by facility as opposed to by communication point. This model has served us well.”
  • “Compared to our other engine, the communication points are more costly but they are also more stable than those of our other engines.”
Compare All Ratings in Survey Summary

1 – low tco ($)
5 – high tco ($$$)

Mirth

2.8

Corepoint

2.8

Rhapsody

3.2

Ensemble

3.2

Cloverleaf

Ratings

Meeting Needs Features & Usability Additional Features Implementation Setup Stability & Scalability Support & Services Total Cost of Ownership Vendor Vs. Partner
Overall Rating