Zensar and an anonymised omnichannel retailer: data migration testing case analysed
Verdict: what is checkable
The evidence grade (this site's label for how a case is sourced: primary with client or press confirmation, secondary when vendor-hosted only.) is secondary: the only source is the vendor's own page; of 3 metrics, 0 are verifiable yes, 0 partial and 3 no. [ev-1774]
Client profile as published
- Client
A large US-based multi-channel retailer
(the vendor's description; the vendor does not name the client)- Segment
- Enterprise omnichannel
- Region
- United States
- Channels
- not stated
- Size indicators
600+ stores
;ten distribution centers
;over one million SKUs
The client description and size indicators are quoted from the source; segment, region and channels are this site's classification. [ev-1774]
Systems in scope
- Data migration (Teradata to Google BigQuery): named in the Overview section (Zensar's brief) and the Solution section
Where the source names each system is quoted or summarised from the case page. [ev-1774]
Problem as stated
The retailer wanted its departmental merchandise transfer application to run fully on Google Chrome without Internet Explorer components. It also had to move the data behind it from Teradata to Google BigQuery on a short timeline, because the Teradata contract was ending. Its staff knew mainly the legacy applications, and documentation of both systems was thin. [ev-1774]
the Teradata contract was ending(quoted from the source)
Approach
- Testing types
- data-migration (main scope: data-migration)
- Team shape
- not stated
- Duration
- not stated
- Engagement model
- not stated
- Tooling named in the source
- none named
Metrics claimed
| Metric | Value | Unit | Claimed by | Verifiable | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| queries and stored procedures migrated | 60+ | queries and stored procedures | vendor | no | ev-1775 |
| cost reduction against on-premises EDW | ~30 | % | vendor | no | ev-1776 |
| time to insights reduction | 40-50 | % | vendor | no | ev-1777 |
What the case does not say
- Duration over which the metric held.
- Team size on both sides.
- What was out of scope.
- Whether the client is still a client.
- Date of the work.
Reading notes for a buyer
This case speaks to the scenario “OMS (order management system: software that routes, splits and tracks customer orders across stores, warehouses and carriers.) or WMS (warehouse management system: software that runs receiving, storage, picking and shipping inside a distribution center.) replacement” and feeds dimension D1 (Retail case study evidence) of the methodology. A question to put to Zensar:
Which error conditions did the custom SQL assertions cover, and how many test scenarios support the claim that all were validated? [ev-1774]
Source and verification
- Source
- GCP Migration Ushers in the Next Phase of Growth for an American Retail Chain
- Published
- not dated by the vendor
- Verified
- 2026-10-30
- Evidence grade
- secondary
- Corroborating sources
- none found
| Id | Claim | Source | Class | Grade | Published | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ev-1774 | GCP Migration Ushers in the Next Phase of Growth for an American Retail Chain | GCP Migration Ushers in the Next Phase of Growth for an American Retail Chain | vendor-case-study | secondary | 2026-10-30 | |
| ev-1775 | Migration of 60+ queries and stored procedures | GCP Migration Ushers in the Next Phase of Growth for an American Retail Chain | vendor-case-study | secondary | 2026-10-30 | |
| ev-1776 | ~30 percent reduction in costs, in comparison to on-premises enterprise data warehouse (EDW) costs | GCP Migration Ushers in the Next Phase of Growth for an American Retail Chain | vendor-case-study | secondary | 2026-10-30 | |
| ev-1777 | 40-50 percent reduction in time to insights | GCP Migration Ushers in the Next Phase of Growth for an American Retail Chain | vendor-case-study | secondary | 2026-10-30 |
Vendor profile: Zensar.
Positions on this page are computed from the methodology published at /methodology/ and from the evidence records linked on this page. Case study figures are the vendor's or the client's claims as published at the linked source; the "verifiable" column states what this site could check. The site does not recommend vendors, does not accept paid placement and does not publish rates. Last computed: 2026-11-03.
Published by the editor of retailqavendors.com. Last reviewed .