BTP Integration Suite versus PI PO

PI/PO is on-premise integration middleware: originally a dual ABAP and Java stack, later simplified to a Java-only Process Orchestration stack with the Advanced Adapter Engine handling adapters, all managed through the Enterprise Services Repository for design-time objects and the Integration Directory for runtime configuration. Integration Suite is a cloud subscription on BTP bundling several separate services under one umbrella - Cloud Integration for flow-based orchestration, API Management, Integration Advisor, Trading Partner Management, Open Connectors - provisioned per BTP subaccount rather than installed on a server the customer patches. The structural fact that causes most confusion: these are not two versions of the same tool. PI/PO's repository and runtime are tightly coupled and administered as one system; Integration Suite decouples design, deployment and monitoring into independently scaling cloud services, and its adapters, mapping tooling and connectivity model (Cloud Connector for on-premise reach) are built differently underneath, so interface logic does not port automatically.

Integration Suite is the right choice for any new integration work, especially cloud-to-cloud scenarios, extension of S/4HANA Cloud, API-led exposure of backend services, and anything governed by a clean core mandate. PI/PO remains defensible only where a customer has a large sunk investment in existing ESR objects, tightly coupled ABAP proxy or IDoc scenarios with no migration budget yet, and no near-term S/4HANA Cloud move. It is a mistake to stand up new PI/PO scenarios for a greenfield project - PI/PO cannot be installed against an S/4HANA Cloud tenant at all, and doing so on an on-premise system contradicts the direction SAP has been steering customers for several release cycles. It is equally a mistake to migrate every existing iflow-equivalent as a mechanical port without redesigning connectivity, since Cloud Connector and destination services introduce a network and security layer that on-premise PI/PO never needed.

Below Integration Suite sits the BTP subaccount, connectivity and destination services, and Cloud Connector where on-premise systems need to be reached. Above it sit the consuming systems: S/4HANA via OData, IDoc or proxy, SuccessFactors, Ariba, non-SAP SaaS applications, and custom Fiori or UI5 apps calling through API Management. PI/PO sits entirely on-premise, sharing infrastructure and patching cycles with the rest of the ABAP landscape, with its Advanced Adapter Engine running adapters locally. Integration Suite does not sit on top of PI/PO or replace it as a drop-in upgrade; it is a parallel platform that many landscapes run alongside PI/PO during a transition period, with PI/PO handling remaining legacy interfaces and Integration Suite taking all new work, migration tooling used to progressively retire PI/PO content scenario by scenario rather than in one cutover.

A customer has a PI/PO scenario receiving an IDoc from ECC, applying ABAP mapping, and forwarding a transformed IDoc to a receiving system, monitored through Runtime Workbench. Migrating this to Cloud Integration starts with running the migration assessment against the PI/PO scenario to check adapter and mapping type coverage - the IDoc adapter exists on Cloud Integration but reaching the sending system now requires a Cloud Connector RFC destination rather than the direct on-premise connection PI/PO had. The ABAP mapping does not carry over; it is rebuilt as a graphical message mapping or a script step inside the Cloud Integration web tooling. The rebuilt iflow is deployed to the Integration Suite tenant, tested end to end, and monitored through Cloud Integration's message monitoring rather than channel monitoring in Runtime Workbench, which means operations staff need a different set of screens and alert thresholds before this interface can go live in production.

For S/4HANA Cloud there is no PI/PO option at all - Integration Suite, or an equivalent BTP-based integration approach, is the only way to connect and extend the system because customers cannot install on-premise middleware against a cloud tenant. For S/4HANA on-premise, PI/PO remains technically usable, but it is now treated as a legacy platform: SAP's stated direction channels innovation and long-term investment into Integration Suite, and clean core guidance favours side-by-side integration on BTP so the ABAP core stays unmodified. Continued PI/PO investment should be treated as tactical maintenance of existing interfaces, with a migration roadmap on the books even where the timeline is not urgent.

The platform decision belongs to the integration architect, who sets the migration roadmap and prioritisation. Integration developers build and test iflows or mappings on whichever platform is target. BTP administrators own the subaccount, Cloud Connector and connectivity services. Functional consultants define the business-level mapping requirements. Handover should include an interface inventory, an adapter and protocol mapping matrix against the target platform, and an agreed cutover sequence per scenario.

Read side-by-side-extensibility-on-sap-btp for how Integration Suite fits into a broader clean core extension strategy rather than as an isolated middleware swap. Read event-driven-integration-with-sap-event-mesh for an integration pattern available on Integration Suite that has no real equivalent in PI/PO's synchronous and IDoc-heavy world. Read api-management-and-principal-propagation for the API Management component of Integration Suite and the security model that differs from PI/PO's on-premise trust setup.