# Which data warehouse platforms integrate smoothly with existing ETL pipelines and BI tools?

<p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">Compiling a resource on <a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/categories/data-warehouse">data warehouse</a> platforms that fit into an existing stack rather than demanding a full rebuild of ETL pipelines and BI tooling around them, since that migration cost is often what actually decides a platform choice more than raw performance benchmarks.</p><ul>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/amazon-redshift"><strong>Amazon Redshift</strong></a> integrates tightly with the broader AWS ecosystem and supports BI and reporting tools directly, which has cut report generation time from hours to minutes for teams centralizing data from multiple systems into one platform. The tradeoff shows up outside AWS, where connecting non-native sources takes noticeably more setup effort.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/denodo"><strong>Denodo</strong></a> takes a different route entirely, virtualizing data from more than 200 source systems into a single logical layer rather than moving or duplicating it, which eliminates the need for complex ETL processes in the first place. It connects into visualization tools like Qlik Sense directly, and one deployment reported a 65% reduction in data delivery time compared to traditional ETL, though extreme scale can require careful query tuning to avoid performance dips.</li>
</ul><p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">These represent two genuinely different philosophies: Redshift assumes ETL pipelines already exist and focuses on connecting to them cleanly, while Denodo tries to make heavy ETL unnecessary in the first place.</p><p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">Has anyone actually compared total integration effort between a traditional ETL-plus-warehouse setup and a virtualization layer like Denodo for the same use case? And for teams using Redshift, how much extra tooling ends up being necessary once data sources go beyond the AWS ecosystem?</p>

##### Post Metadata
- Posted at: 1 day ago
- Author title: Marketing Executive
- Net upvotes: 1


## Comments
### Comment 1

Good framing on the two philosophies, and I&#39;d add the variable that usually decides between them: how often the source schemas change. Virtualization of the kind Denodo does is strongest where sources are many and reasonably stable, because the logical layer absorbs the joins, while heavy schema churn pushes effort back into maintaining that layer. So the comparison anyone runs should measure ongoing maintenance rather than initial integration, since that&#39;s where the two approaches actually diverge.

##### Comment Metadata
- Posted at: about 10 hours ago
- Author title: Tech Consultant





## Related discussions
- [How well does Trello scale into a larger team?](https://www.g2.com/discussions/1-how-well-does-trello-scale-into-a-larger-team)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 6
- [Can we please add a new section](https://www.g2.com/discussions/2-can-we-please-add-a-new-section)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 0
- [Quantifiable benefits from implementing your CRM](https://www.g2.com/discussions/quantifiable-benefits-from-implementing-your-crm)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 4