It's an extremely elegant platform with a great UX and well thought UI. The flexibility of connectors is amazing. The sky is the limit, when it comes to integrating systems. And this is the main thing why we favoured Hull over other tools: It had no use case or process idea implemented, aside from being a platform to sync and unify data across sources. With every other service we would have been forced into one direction, while we try to get away from filling in the blanks of systems that come with defined processes.
Everything has logs: Users, Accounts and Events. And they offer a really powerful logging system that does a good job as safety net. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
The persistence and display of historic events is limited. Does not matter too much, as it is better stored as raw data and presented in systems where it's actionable to your users. And in the end, Hull is not an end user system. But you should plan for this fact and prepare your data model accordingly.
Documentation (and examples) on attributes for users and accounts could be improved to allow for easier on boarding and data modelling. But Hull staff makes sure you are not left alone and tries to lend a helping hand where and whenever possible.
You should calculate costs for staging databases or custom applications to stage and prepare your data. Just stuffing your raw data from live databases will not end well, degrading application performance during load as well as putting too much weight on Hull during transformation. There's not really much to not like about Hull. It just takes some time to align your ideas with the bits and pieces of the concept that powers Hull und the hood. Then you will see that there is not really anything that's not possible. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
