Most integration advice arrives from a partner with a quota on one side of the decision. We hold partner relationships across the major cloud and data platforms, which is exactly why indifference about which one you use is affordable. We connect the systems you already run, retire the ones nobody needs, and tell you when the honest answer is to keep what you have.
Systems integration and consolidation without a platform quota. We connect what you run, retire what you do not need, and stay indifferent about whose license you buy.
Vendor-neutral system integration is integration work performed by a firm with no resale margin on the platforms involved. The integrator connects, consolidates or retires existing systems based on what the estate needs, rather than steering the client toward a product the integrator earns commission on.
Vendor-neutral system integration means the firm connecting your systems earns nothing from which platform you choose. Thinklytics holds partner relationships across the major cloud and data platforms and takes no resale margin, so consolidation advice is driven by your estate rather than by a license target.
Connecting the systems you already run so data moves between them reliably and on a schedule you can depend on.
Consolidating overlapping platforms where the duplication is costing real money, and proving the saving before the switch-off.
Wrapping legacy systems that cannot be replaced yet, so modern tools can read them without a rebuild.
An honest recommendation to keep what you have when replacing it would not pay for itself.
A reseller engagement. We do not take margin on the platforms we recommend, which is the whole point.
A rip-and-replace by default. Replacement is one option among several, and often not the cheapest.
An offshore integration pod. Delivery is US-based and senior-led, start to finish.
An estate map: every system in scope, what it holds, what reads from it, and what it actually costs to run.
A consolidation case with the arithmetic shown, including the option of changing nothing.
The integration itself: pipelines, APIs or wrappers, built on the platform that fits rather than the one with a quota attached.
A parallel-run and cutover plan, so the old system is proven redundant before it is switched off.
Reconciliation evidence that the new path produces the same numbers as the old one.
Annual infrastructure cost after nine reporting systems were consolidated into one. Monthly close went from 18 days to 3.
Annual infrastructure cost after eleven campus data warehouses became a single Snowflake environment.
Annual data cost removed by merging four core banking systems into one member platform.
Every integration recommendation you get points at the same vendor.
The firm advising you earns margin on that vendor. This is not necessarily bad advice, but you are not getting a comparison, you are getting a pitch.
You are paying for several systems that do roughly the same job.
Overlap accumulates through acquisitions and departmental buying. Nobody owns the estate view, so nothing gets retired.
Replacement is being treated as the only option. Wrapping it so modern tools can read it is usually faster and far cheaper.
The old system was never actually switched off, because nobody proved it was redundant. Two systems now run where one used to.
We take no resale margin or commission on the platforms we recommend. We hold partner relationships across the major cloud and data platforms, which gives us the certifications and support access to work in any of them, without the license target that would bias the recommendation.
Often, yes. Replacement has to pay for itself and frequently does not. A recommendation to change nothing is a legitimate outcome of an estate review, and it is one a reseller has no incentive to give you.
By running the old and new paths in parallel, reconciling the outputs, and only then switching the old one off. Savings that are projected but never realized usually trace back to a legacy system that quietly stayed running.
Can you integrate systems you have never worked with before?
Usually. Integration work is mostly about the shape of the data and the contract between systems, not about deep familiarity with one product. Where a system is obscure enough to be a real risk, we say so during the estate map rather than discovering it mid-build.
What about systems that cannot be touched for compliance reasons?
Those get wrapped rather than replaced. A read layer over a frozen system lets modern tools consume it without changing the system of record, which keeps the compliance position intact.
Yes. Being vendor-neutral means we have no reason to displace anyone who is doing good work. We are often brought in specifically to give a second read on a recommendation.
The value here is the absence of a quota. If you already trust the recommendation you have, you may not need a second opinion.
You are being advised to buy a platform by the firm that sells it.
Overlapping systems are costing real money and nobody owns the estate view.
A legacy system is blocking modernization and replacement looks expensive.
A previous consolidation was supposed to save money and did not.
The problem is one platform's data quality rather than the number of platforms: see Data Foundation.
You know you are consolidating and want it executed: see System Consolidation.
The systems are SAP and the driver is an S/4HANA move: see the SAP S/4HANA Practice.
The disagreement is about metric definitions, not systems: that is Semantic Layer Engineering.
We do not publish a rate. What moves the effort is the number of systems, the state of their interfaces, and how much evidence the cutover needs.
Two systems moving data one way is a different job from nine systems with bidirectional sync and conflicting keys.
A documented API is cheap to work with. A nightly file drop with no schema and a legacy database nobody has credentials for are not.
Where the same customer or product exists in several systems under different identifiers, the matching work often exceeds the pipeline work.
A regulated estate needs reconciliation by record and by value before switch-off. That evidence takes time and it is the part that makes the saving real.
Adding an integration is cheaper than decommissioning a system. Most of the saving sits in the decommission, and so does most of the effort.
The estate map comes first, so scope is measured against what you actually run before any number is discussed.
Every system in scope, what it holds, what reads from it, and its real annual cost. Frequently the first time anyone has seen the whole picture.
Consolidate, integrate, wrap or leave alone, each costed. Leaving it alone is a real option and is sometimes the right one.
The integration goes in while the old path keeps running, so nothing depends on the new one until it has proven itself.
Outputs matched record by record, then the old system is switched off. The saving only exists after this step.
The difference is not capability. It is what happens when the honest answer is that you do not need to buy anything.