---
title: "PDM vs PLM: Key Differences & SAP IPD Migration Case Study"
description: Compare PDM vs PLM, understand how they work together, and explore product data migration to SAP IPD through a practical Migravion case study.
---

<https://migravion.com>

[Free Trial](https://migravion.com/free-trial)

[Customer Portal](https://migravion.com/tickets-view) [Free Trial](https://migravion.com/free-trial) [Free Trial](https://migravion.com/free-trial)

[\< Back](https://migravion.com/blog)

[Home \>](https://migravion.com/) [Blog \>](https://migravion.com/blog) Article

Share

[![Share on Facebook](https://migravion.com/hubfs/facebook-icon.svg)](http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmigravion.com%2Fblog%2Fpdm-vs-plm%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dfacebook) [![Share on LinkedIn](https://static.hubspot.com/final/img/common/icons/social/linkedin-24x24.png)](http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmigravion.com%2Fblog%2Fpdm-vs-plm%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dlinkedin) [![Share on Twitter](https://static.hubspot.com/final/img/common/icons/social/twitter-24x24.png)](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fmigravion.com%2Fblog%2Fpdm-vs-plm%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dtwitter&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmigravion.com%2Fblog%2Fpdm-vs-plm%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dtwitter&source=tweetbutton&text=PDM%20vs%20PLM%3A%20Key%20Differences%20%26%20SAP%20IPD%20Migration%20Case%20Study)

 Oct 22, 2026

|

 33 min

 Table of contents:

Compare PDM vs PLM, understand how they work together, and explore product data migration to SAP IPD through a practical Migravion case study.

# PDM vs. PLM: Key Differences and What They Mean for Your Product Data

[Product information](https://migravion.com/blog/product-master-data-management) supports many activities, from designing a component to approving a specification, planning production, and maintaining equipment. As this information grows, organizations need reliable ways to control both the data itself and the processes that depend on it.

Streamline Your SAP Data Management with Migravion

[Free Trial](https://migravion.com/free-trial)

Product data management (PDM) and product lifecycle management (PLM) address closely related parts of this challenge. Their capabilities overlap, and software vendors sometimes use the terms differently, making it difficult to understand what each approach provides.

This article explains the main differences between PDM and PLM, how they work together, and what the distinction means when connecting systems or preparing product data for initiatives involving SAP Integrated Product Development (SAP IPD).

## What Is PDM?

Product data management is the discipline of organizing, controlling, and [maintaining product-related technical information](https://migravion.com/blog/plm-maintenance-automation). PDM software typically provides a controlled environment for engineering data, helping teams find the correct files, manage revisions, and maintain relationships between product records.

Commonly managed information includes CAD models, drawings, technical documents, part records, and engineering bills of materials. Depending on the solution, PDM can also support release workflows and engineering change activities. Its primary focus is ensuring that engineering information remains accurate, accessible, and controlled.

Consider an engineering team updating a pump assembly. The team needs to identify the latest approved drawing, understand which component revision belongs in the assembly, and prevent simultaneous changes from overwriting each other. PDM provides the controls needed to manage these activities.

The value extends beyond file storage. A drawing becomes useful in context according to which part it describes, which revision is approved, and which assemblies depend on it. Maintaining those connections is central to effective product data management.

## What Is PLM?

Product lifecycle management is a broader approach to coordinating product information, people, and processes throughout a product’s lifecycle, from initial requirements and development through production, service, and retirement.

PLM software supports this approach by connecting product data with various related activities, such as requirements management, engineering changes, cross-functional collaboration, and manufacturing handover. PDM capabilities often form part of this wider environment.

For the pump manufacturer, a design change may affect more than a drawing. A new component could require a supplier review, a manufacturing assessment, updated service instructions, and a decision about when the change becomes effective. PLM helps coordinate these connected decisions.

PLM is also relevant beyond CAD-intensive engineering. In [food manufacturing](https://migravion.com/blog/recipe-management-modernization-in-food-manufacturing), product development may center on formulations, raw material specifications, packaging properties, and nutritional information. The product data differs, but the need to coordinate information and decisions across functions remains.

## PDM vs. PLM: Key Differences

The main difference between PDM and PLM is scope. PDM concentrates on controlling product data, particularly within engineering. PLM extends that foundation into broader lifecycle processes and collaboration across the enterprise.

The following table summarizes the typical distinction. Actual capabilities depend on the software, configuration, and implementation scope.

| **Aspect** | **PDM** | **PLM** |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Primary purpose | Control technical product data and its revisions | Coordinate product information and lifecycle processes |
| Typical focus | Engineering and design data management | Product development and cross-functional lifecycle management |
| Common users | Designers, engineers, and technical data managers | Engineering, product development, manufacturing, quality, procurement, and other stakeholders |
| Typical information | CAD files, drawings, documents, parts, and engineering BOMs | Engineering data plus requirements, change records, specifications, and other lifecycle information |
| Process support | Data release, revision control, and engineering workflows | Broader change coordination, collaboration, and lifecycle workflows |
| Integration needs | Connections with CAD tools and downstream business systems | Connections across engineering, ERP, manufacturing, supplier, and service environments |
| Relationship between them | Can operate independently or within a PLM environment | Often incorporates or connects PDM capabilities |

These distinctions should guide evaluation without becoming rigid boundaries. A PDM solution may provide sophisticated workflows and [ERP integration](https://migravion.com/blog/sap-erp-integration-guide). A PLM implementation may initially cover only a limited set of processes.

Therefore, comparing actual requirements with demonstrated capabilities is more useful than relying on the product category alone.

## How PDM and PLM Work Together

PDM and PLM frequently coexist. An organization may use PDM capabilities embedded within a PLM platform or retain a specialized PDM system connected to other lifecycle applications.

The arrangement depends on existing tools, engineering requirements, and the intended system architecture. Broader PLM adoption does not automatically require replacing every system that already manages product data.

For example, a manufacturer might retain its PDM system for CAD files and engineering revisions, while using a broader PLM environment to coordinate requirements and change decisions. SAP S/4HANA could manage the operational [material](https://migravion.com/blog/sap-material-master-data) and [manufacturing information](https://migravion.com/blog/manufacturing-data-integration-with-migravion) needed for procurement and production.

A proposed component change would then involve several responsibilities:

- **Engineering data control:** The PDM environment [maintains](https://migravion.com/solutions/data-maintenance) the updated design files, their revisions, and their relationships to affected parts and assemblies. Engineers can identify the approved baseline, distinguish work in progress from released information, and assess where a changed component is used. For example, while replacing a seal in a pump assembly requires the revised drawing and component reference to remain aligned, earlier revisions remain identifiable for products already manufactured.
- **Cross-functional assessment:** The PLM process coordinates the review of manufacturing, sourcing, quality, and service implications. Each function evaluates the proposed change from its perspective: procurement may check supplier availability, manufacturing may assess tooling requirements, and service teams may determine compatibility with installed equipment. The resulting decision establishes the conditions for introducing the change, including any required testing, documentation, or restrictions on its use.
- **Operational implementation:** Approved information reaches ERP according to agreed rules for release, validity, and production use. This can involve creating or updating material records, transferring relevant BOM changes, and linking supporting documents. For example, a replacement component may become valid from a specified date, while the previous component remains applicable to existing production orders. [Transfer checks](https://migravion.com/blog/data-migration-testing-guide) and [reconciliation](https://migravion.com/blog/enterprise-data-reconciliation-automation) help confirm that the approved change was implemented correctly and that any rejected updates are resolved.

This architecture requires clear ownership. Teams need to know which system controls each attribute, which event permits a transfer, and how exceptions are handled.

For instance, an engineering revision should not automatically overwrite a production record simply because it is newer. The transfer must respect the organization’s approval and implementation rules.

## When Is PDM Enough, and When Are Broader PLM Capabilities Needed?

The right scope depends on the problems an organization needs to solve. Some teams primarily need stronger control over technical files and revisions. Others need to coordinate product decisions across departments, sites, suppliers, and systems.

The following considerations help distinguish these needs:

- **The main difficulties concern engineering data control:** If teams struggle with duplicate CAD files, unclear revisions, or missing links between drawings and assemblies, PDM may address the immediate requirement. The evaluation should focus on integration with authoring tools, access control, search, revision handling, and release processes.
- **Product changes require coordinated decisions across functions:** Broader PLM capabilities become relevant when a design change routinely triggers assessments by procurement, manufacturing, quality, and service. The requirement extends beyond storing an approved design to managing its wider impact.
- **Requirements and product evidence need connected traceability:** Organizations may need to understand which product configuration satisfies a requirement and which test or document supports that conclusion. The necessary links and review processes should be evaluated explicitly.
- **Multiple sites or business units manage related products:** Different numbering conventions, local product variants, and inconsistent classifications can make collaboration difficult. Broader lifecycle coordination may help, but it must be accompanied by agreements about ownership and shared data standards.
- **Manual handovers create recurring delays:** Re-entering engineering information into spreadsheets or ERP can indicate an integration problem, a process problem, or both. Teams should identify the root cause, before deciding whether to extend existing systems, introduce PLM capabilities, or improve data workflows.

A useful starting point is a real product change. Tracing it from proposal to implementation often reveals where existing controls are sufficient and where information or decisions become disconnected.

This also prevents overestimating what a new platform will solve. Unclear responsibilities and inconsistent definitions still require business decisions, regardless of the software selected.

## What PDM and PLM Mean for an SAP IPD Project

SAP Integrated Product Development (IPD) is a cloud solution that supports broader PLM activities. Its capabilities include specification management, requirements management, configuration management, formulation, collaboration, and [product data integration](https://migravion.com/blog/plm-integration-with-migravion). Its role within an organization depends on the product development processes included in the implementation.

The distinction between PDM and PLM helps clarify how SAP IPD will fit into the existing environment. Teams need to establish which engineering data responsibilities remain with current systems, how product development connects with ERP, and which information the project will cover.

### The role of existing PDM systems

An existing PDM system may continue to control CAD files, technical documents, and engineering revisions, while SAP IPD supports selected collaboration or product development processes. In this arrangement, the project needs to define which information is exchanged, when it becomes available, and which system remains responsible for [maintaining](https://migravion.com/blog/sap-master-data-maintenance-guide) it.

Other projects may involve moving selected product information from legacy applications into SAP IPD. This requires decisions about [migration scope](https://migravion.com/blog/sap-s4hana-data-migration-objects), historical records, and the relationships that must be preserved. Retaining a PDM system and [migrating selected data](https://migravion.com/solutions/s-4hana-migration/selective-data-transition) are also compatible choices, because different data domains may follow different transition approaches.

For each domain, the future design should establish:

- **Data ownership:** Which application controls the information, and which business function is responsible for its accuracy and approval?
- **The transition approach:** Will the information remain in its current system, be referenced or [synchronized](https://migravion.com/blog/sap-non-sap-data-synchronization), or move into SAP IPD?
- **Required relationships:** Which links between parts, documents, specifications, and product structures must remain usable across the future environment?

### The relationship between SAP IPD and SAP S/4HANA

SAP IPD and SAP S/4HANA can support connected responsibilities across product development and operational processes. The exact division depends on the applications and integration scenarios included in the project.

For example, product specifications may be maintained in SAP IPD, while related operational material information is managed in SAP S/4HANA. The project must define how those records correspond, which attributes are exchanged, and when approved changes become available for downstream use.

This relationship makes the PDM–PLM distinction practical. Controlling an engineering record is one responsibility; coordinating how its information supports procurement, production, or quality activities is a broader lifecycle concern. Clear ownership and exchange rules help prevent conflicting updates and ensure that development information reaches operational systems in the appropriate business context.

### The product data covered by the project

The information involved in an SAP IPD project depends on the industry and the processes being implemented. In discrete manufacturing, the scope may emphasize engineering product structures and associated documents. In process manufacturing, specifications, formulations, and raw material properties may be central.

This matters because a CAD-centered view of PDM does not capture every organization’s product data requirements. A food manufacturer, for example, may need to consolidate ingredient specifications, composition information, and packaging properties held across legacy applications and spreadsheets.

Defining the relevant data domains helps teams identify the sources, [transformation rules](https://migravion.com/solutions/data-maintenance/data-transformation), and [validation](https://migravion.com/solutions/data-quality/data-validation) requirements needed for implementation. It also keeps the project focused on the information required to support the intended product development processes.

## Data Considerations When Connecting or Modernizing PDM and PLM

Whether an organization connects existing systems or adopts a new platform, successful data exchange requires agreement on meaning as well as format. Two applications can accept the same field length, but interpret the value differently.

The considerations listed below help teams preserve usable product information during integration and [PLM data migration](https://migravion.com/solutions/plm-data-migration).

### Product identifiers and cross-system references

Part numbers, material numbers, specification identifiers, and document identifiers may follow different conventions. The same product can have several identifiers, while identical numbers in separate legacy systems may refer to different products.

A controlled cross-reference should record these relationships. Matching solely on descriptions is risky, because descriptions may be abbreviated, translated, or reused.

For example, two acquired businesses might both use part number “100250” for unrelated components. Preserving the source-system context prevents an incorrect consolidation.

### Classifications, properties, and units

Similar attributes can have different definitions across systems. A field called “Weight” may represent net weight in one application and gross weight in another. A property may be recorded in grams in one source and kilograms in another.

Therefore, [mapping](https://migravion.com/blog/data-mapping-automation) should define the business meaning, unit, precision, and permitted values. Where classifications differ, teams also need to determine which target properties become mandatory.

A valid conversion must preserve meaning. Converting a number without understanding what it measures can produce technically acceptable data, even though that data may be incorrect.

### Revisions, versions, and lifecycle statuses

Systems may distinguish between working versions, formally issued revisions, and release statuses in different ways. These concepts should be mapped separately.

A legacy “Released” status, for example, might mean that engineering completed its review. The target process may require additional checks, before the record becomes available for downstream use.

Migration rules should identify which history is required and how it will be represented. Integration rules should define which changes are eligible for transfer and how they affect existing target records.

### Product structures and relationships

A product structure includes more than a list of components. Relationships can carry quantities, units, positions, alternatives, and validity information.

Engineering and manufacturing views may also differ legitimately. A manufacturing BOM can include packaging or production-specific arrangements that are absent from the engineering structure.

Therefore, validation should test the expected target relationships. An equal record count alone cannot demonstrate that a product structure remains correct.

### Documents and file links

Document metadata and the underlying files need coordinated handling. A document record may load successfully, while its file is missing or its link points to the wrong revision.

The scope should distinguish files, metadata, and relationships to product objects. Relevant checks include file availability, supported formats, revision associations, and access after transfer.

A useful acceptance test is whether a user can open the correct supporting document from the relevant product record.

### Validation and reconciliation

Technical acceptance by an interface is only one part of validation. The project also needs evidence that the resulting product information is complete and usable.

Checks can include mandatory properties, allowed values, unresolved references, structure completeness, and agreed totals. Business users should review representative products, including complex variants and known exceptions.

Reconciliation must reflect approved [transformations](https://migravion.com/blog/sap-data-transformation-guide). If duplicate specifications are deliberately consolidated, fewer target records may be accurate. The evidence should explain how source records correspond to the retained target objects.

### Ongoing synchronization and recovery

For connected environments, [data quality](https://migravion.com/solutions/data-quality) must remain controlled after the initial transfer. Teams need rules for update ownership, transfer timing, rejected records, and recovery after interruptions.

For example, if an interface accepts a product record, but rejects its document relationship, the workflow needs to identify the incomplete result and retry the missing element, without creating another product record.

These controls support reliable PLM integration as products and processes change.

## How Migravion Supports PDM and PLM Data Workflows

Migravion provides data engineering capabilities for [preparing and moving product information](https://migravion.com/blog/plm-data-migration-guide) across SAP and non-SAP environments. Its role in PDM and PLM initiatives centers on the data workflows needed for migration, integration, validation, and ongoing maintenance.

Migravion’s capabilities include:

- [**Data extraction**](https://migravion.com/solutions/data-maintenance/data-extraction) **and consolidation:** Migravion can bring together information from SAP systems, databases, files, and other sources through suitable connectors and interfaces. This helps teams prepare a consistent dataset when product information is distributed across applications.
- [**Mapping**](https://migravion.com/solutions/data-maintenance/visual-data-mapping) **and transformation:** Visual low-code workflows support field mapping and transformation, while SQL and [Python extensions](https://migravion.com/blog/python-etl) accommodate specialized logic. These capabilities can support identifier conversion, attribute standardization, and restructuring.
- **Validation and exception handling:** Workflows can apply defined [quality checks](https://migravion.com/blog/data-quality-testing) before delivery and separate records requiring investigation. Teams can address missing values or inconsistent references through a controlled process.
- **Workflow** [**orchestration**](https://migravion.com/blog/data-orchestration-vs-etl) **and** [**monitoring**](https://migravion.com/blog/data-quality-monitoring-guide)**:** Scheduling, execution logs, reports, and notifications help teams operate repeatable data flows and investigate processing issues.

The specific loading approach depends on the target application, available interfaces, and object scope. Business owners still define the rules governing product meaning, lifecycle decisions, and acceptable results.

## SAP IPD Case Study: Rebuilding Connected Product Data with Migravion

The practical challenge behind PDM and PLM modernization is making existing product information usable within a new environment. A project delivered by the Migravion team for a food manufacturer illustrates this challenge: the migration covered over 1,000 interconnected objects, from individual components to ingredients, packaging, labels, and finished recipes.

The manufacturer’s product information was distributed across legacy sources and business-maintained files. The objective was to establish a connected product data environment in SAP Integrated Product Development. Achieving this required the team to reconstruct specification structures, resolve dependencies, and preserve the relationships that gave each record its business meaning.

### Turning business templates into complete specifications

Ingredient information included much more than names and descriptions. Each specification could contain composition details, allergens, nutrients, legacy material codes, and references to other objects.

The migration team organized this information into Excel templates with separate worksheets corresponding to different sections of the target specification. Business users could review familiar tabular data, while the migration logic handled the more complex structure required by SAP IPD.

A Python-based transformation plugin in Migravion combined the related worksheets and generated the structured API payload for each ingredient specification. This brought the header, properties, compositions, and references together into a complete object before submission through SAP IPD’s OData APIs.

This [Excel to SAP workflow](https://migravion.com/blog/excel-to-sap-automation) separated business data preparation from technical payload construction. Business users could maintain and review the templates, while Migravion handled the transformation into SAP IPD structures. Adjustments to transformation logic could be maintained within the plugin, without requiring business users to manually construct API requests.

### Resolving dependencies through staged loading

The migration sequence reflected the relationships between objects. Components were created first, followed by ingredient specifications that referenced them. Packaging and labels followed their respective specification structures, while recipes and formulations depended on the supporting objects already being available.

An important requirement was handling identifiers generated by SAP IPD. After loading components, the team retrieved their new identifiers and used them when constructing dependent ingredient specifications. The same principle applied to subsequent stages.

For example, a cake recipe could reference a cake mix or chocolate filling, each of which depended on previously created component specifications. Therefore, a missing or incorrect reference at an early stage could affect several downstream objects.

Migravion’s workflows connected these stages so that the output of one load supplied the references needed for the next. Dependency handling became part of the transformation design, alongside naming standardization and legacy code conversion.

The schema below illustrates the process.

![SAP IPD migration schema\_11zon](https://migravion.com/hs-fs/hubfs/SAP%20IPD%20migration%20schema_11zon.webp?width=512&height=416&name=SAP%20IPD%20migration%20schema_11zon.webp)

 

### Reconstructing recipe and formulation structures

Recipes required additional logic because their meaning depended on both references and internal structure. The source templates separated recipe-level information, including SAP S/4HANA material references and output specifications, from the individual formulation rows.

The migration logic assembled these elements, while preserving hierarchical stages, operations, and parent–child relationships. It also addressed a project-specific ordering requirement: the output specification needed to be repositioned programmatically to match the intended recipe structure.

This work demonstrated why field mapping alone was insufficient. The team had to reproduce how the recipe’s elements related to one another and how they were arranged, so that the resulting object reflected the agreed business model.

### Checking results at each migration stage

Execution monitoring provided visibility into processed records, created objects, warnings, and errors. This helped the team identify failed records and determine what required correction, before dependent loads proceeded.

Post-load validation was a separate activity. The team checked specification property trees, composition information, allergens, nutrients, and legacy references in SAP IPD. Recipe reviews examined formulation structures and links to supporting specifications, while SAP S/4HANA references were verified early in the process.

Reconciliation after each stage helped establish whether the expected objects and relationships were present. Successful API responses were useful execution evidence, but acceptance also depended on the completeness and correctness of the resulting product structures.

### What the project demonstrates

The project brought fragmented source information into a structured, connected product model in SAP IPD. Reusable plugins and sequenced workflows also allowed migration logic to be adjusted and rerun as source data and target configuration evolved during testing.

For organizations evaluating PDM and PLM, the case highlights a practical requirement: broader lifecycle processes depend on reliable connections between product records. Migravion combined transformation, dependency sequencing, API-based loading, and validation to help establish those connections in the target environment.

## Conclusion

PDM provides control over technical product information, while PLM connects that information with broader lifecycle processes and cross-functional decisions. The appropriate scope depends on the organization’s products, existing systems, and collaboration requirements.

For projects involving SAP IPD, SAP S/4HANA, or other product platforms, understanding these responsibilities helps determine which information should remain, connect, or migrate. Clear ownership, consistent mappings, and reliable validation turn that architecture into usable product data.

Migravion helps teams build and automate data workflows that support these changes. Request a demo to discuss your product data migration or integration requirements.

## FAQ

- ### What is the main difference between PDM and PLM?
  
  The main difference is scope. PDM focuses on controlling technical product data, such as engineering files, part records, and revisions. PLM connects product information with broader processes and decisions across the lifecycle. The categories overlap, so individual solutions should be assessed against specific requirements.
- ### Is PDM part of PLM?
  
  PDM is commonly considered a foundation within the broader PLM approach. A PLM platform may include PDM capabilities or connect to a separate PDM application. The arrangement depends on engineering needs, existing investments, and the intended architecture.
- ### Can PDM and PLM systems work together?
  
  Yes. A company can retain a specialized PDM system, while using other applications for broader lifecycle processes. Successful integration requires clear data ownership, identifier mappings, release rules, and exception handling, so that connected systems exchange the correct information.
- ### Does adopting PLM require replacing an existing PDM system?
  
  No. An existing PDM system may continue to manage engineering information, while additional PLM capabilities support collaboration and lifecycle activities. Replacement should depend on functional fit, integration requirements, and the future architecture, rather than an assumption that PLM makes PDM unnecessary.
- ### How does SAP IPD relate to PDM and PLM?
  
  SAP Integrated Product Development supports broader PLM activities through applications addressing specifications, requirements, collaboration, and product structures. Its relationship with an existing PDM environment depends on the project scope. Some information may remain in PDM and be integrated, while other data may move into SAP IPD.
- ### What data should be prepared for a PDM or PLM migration?
  
  The scope may include parts, product structures, specifications, classifications, revisions, lifecycle statuses, documents, and their relationships. Preparation involves resolving identifiers, mapping meanings and units, addressing quality issues, and defining the history to retain. Validation should demonstrate that the target information supports the intended business processes.
- ### How can Migravion support a PDM or PLM modernization project?
  
  Migravion helps teams prepare, transform, validate, and transfer product data between existing systems and target environments like SAP IPD or SAP S/4HANA. Its workflows can consolidate information from multiple sources, map identifiers and attributes, and sequence loads according to object dependencies. SQL and Python extensions support complex transformations, while logs and reconciliation reports help teams investigate errors and verify results. These capabilities support both migration projects and ongoing integration across product data environments.

Request a Demo

 Get a personal walkthrough from one of our product specialists to explore DataLark’s key features:

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA, the [Google Privacy Policy](https://policies.google.com/privacy) and   
[Terms of Service](https://policies.google.com/terms) apply.

Reach out to us for a personalized demo and answers to any questions you have.

By clicking on the button above I agree with processing of my personal data for the purposes specified in the [Privacy Policy](https://migravion.com/privacy-policy).

[Education Articles](https://datalark.com/blog/tag/category_education_articles) [Data Integration](https://datalark.com/blog/tag/cases_data_integration) [Data Migration](https://datalark.com/blog/tag/cases_data_migration)

## Get a trusted partner for successful data migration

[Contact Us](https://migravion.com/contact-us)

[Data Management Platform](https://datalark.com/)

Powered by

<https://leverx.com?utm_source=datalark&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=footer>

![aws-partner-icon](https://migravion.com/hubfs/footer-images/aws-partner-icon.svg) ![google-cloud-partner-icon](https://migravion.com/hubfs/footer-images/google-cloud-partner-icon.svg) ![sap-icon](https://migravion.com/hubfs/footer-images/sap-icon.svg) ![apphaus-icon](https://migravion.com/hubfs/footer-images/apphaus-icon.svg) ![microsoft-icon](https://migravion.com/hubfs/footer-images/microsoft-icon.svg) ![iso-55001-icon](https://migravion.com/hubfs/footer-images/iso-55001-icon.svg) ![iso-22301-icon](https://migravion.com/hubfs/footer-images/iso-22301-icon.svg) ![iso-27001-icon](https://migravion.com/hubfs/footer-images/iso-27001-icon.svg) ![iso-9001-icon](https://migravion.com/hubfs/footer-images/iso-9001-icon.svg) ![aws-partner-network-icon](https://migravion.com/hubfs/footer-images/aws-partner-network-icon.svg)

© LeverX Inc. All rights reserved

[![facebook-icon](https://migravion.com/hubfs/footer-images/facebook-icon.svg)](https://www.facebook.com/Migravion/) [![linkedin-icon](https://migravion.com/hubfs/footer-images/linkedin-icon.svg)](https://www.linkedin.com/company/migravion) 

[Privacy policy](https://migravion.com/privacy-policy) [Cookie declaration](https://migravion.com/cookie-declaration)

```json
{
  "@context" : "https://schema.org",
  "@type" : "WebSite",
  "name" : "Migravion",
  "url" : "https://migravion.com/"
}
```

```json
{
  "@context" : "https://schema.org",
  "@type" : "LocalBusiness",
  "address" : {
    "@type" : "PostalAddress",
    "addressCountry" : "US",
    "addressLocality" : "Miami",
    "addressRegion" : "Florida",
    "postalCode" : "33131",
    "streetAddress" : "801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1970"
  },
  "image" : "https://migravion.com/hubfs/Migravion-logo.svg",
  "name" : "Migravion",
  "telephone" : "+17864645772"
}
```