Semantic Layer vs Traditional Data Marts: What to Choose

author-img
by Emily Winks, Data governance expert at Atlan.Last Updated on: February 09th, 2026 | 13 min read

Quick answer: Semantic layer vs traditional data marts

A semantic layer standardizes business definitions (metrics, dimensions, and relationships) across tools by translating technical schemas into shared concepts. A traditional data mart is a physically modeled and stored subset of enterprise data built to serve specific reporting needs, often optimized for performance, workload isolation, or audited snapshots.

  • Core difference: Semantic layer = shared meaning and reusable KPI logic; data mart = curated storage and workload isolation.
  • Best fit: Semantic layers reduce KPI drift across tools; marts help meet strict SLAs and support audited "as-of" reporting.

Below: what is a semantic layer, What is a traditional data mart?, key differences, When to use what?, Pros, cons, and pitfalls, Modernization path, Decision framework.

Assess Your Context Readiness →Take Atlan Product Tour

What is a semantic layer?

What it contains (metrics, dimensions, relationships)


A semantic layer typically defines:

  • Metrics: calculations like net revenue, ARR, churn, active customers
  • Dimensions: attributes to slice by (region, plan, channel, cohort)
  • Relationships: governed join paths and entity concepts (customer, account, subscription)

The point is to make business questions answerable with consistent definitions across tools.

Where it lives (logical vs physical)


Most semantic layers are primarily logical/metadata-based.

They reference existing tables, views, or models in your warehouse/lakehouse and generate queries (or expose an API) rather than storing a second copy of the data. Some implementations also support caching or materialized views for performance.

What it enables in practice


Done well, a semantic layer enables:

  • Tool portability: the same metric definitions can power multiple BI tools
  • Governed self-serve: users pick business concepts, not raw tables
  • Consistency for AI: AI agents can map “customers” and “revenue” to the right joins and filters.

For a deeper primer on types and components (still useful as background even if you’re evaluating multiple approaches), see this semantic layer guide.

What is a traditional data mart?

Typical structure and modeling


A traditional data mart is a physically curated dataset, often designed around dimensional modeling concepts:

  • Fact tables for events or measures (orders, invoices, sessions)
  • Dimension tables for descriptive attributes (customer, product, time)
  • Conformed dimensions where possible to make reporting consistent

Many marts are implemented as a dedicated database, schema, or curated set of tables in a warehouse.

How it’s built (ETL/ELT + schedules)


Data marts are usually built through scheduled pipelines:

  • Extract/ingest from source systems into the platform
  • Transform and model into the mart schema
  • Validate quality (row counts, constraints, reconciliations)
  • Refresh on a cadence (hourly, daily, etc.)

This pipeline work can be justified when the mart is powering repeatable, high-stakes reporting.

Why teams still use them


Even in modern stacks, marts remain useful when you need:

  • Performance and concurrency control for “always-on” dashboards
  • Workload isolation (so one team’s exploration doesn’t impact another’s SLA)
  • Auditable snapshots for finance and compliance reporting
  • A stable contract for downstream tools that expect star schemas

Semantic layer vs data mart: key differences

Comparison table (semantic layer vs traditional data mart)


Dimension Semantic layer Traditional data mart What to watch for
Logical vs physical Primarily metadata and query logic Physical tables/schemas and stored aggregates “Semantic” implementations may still materialize hot paths—define boundaries clearly
Scope Cross-domain and cross-tool Domain/department-focused Don’t force one enterprise model if domains truly differ
Consistency Central place for KPI definitions Logic often embedded in ETL/SQL per mart KPI drift happens when multiple marts re-implement “the same” metric
Governance Owners, certification, approvals at the metric/entity level Governance tied to schemas, pipelines, and report SLAs Without governance, semantic layers become another source of conflicting logic
Performance & cost Warehouse compute at query time; caching optional Storage + pipeline cost; fast queries via precompute Optimize for your cost curve: compute-heavy vs pipeline-heavy
Tool portability Designed for reuse across tools and interfaces Often optimized for one reporting pattern BI-tool-embedded semantics can reintroduce lock-in
Operational overhead Semantic modeling, versioning, and support ETL/ELT jobs, backfills, schema evolution Both require lifecycle management; avoid “set and forget”
Security & access Policies can be expressed at business concept level Access often controlled per schema/table Align policies so users don’t get different answers via different paths
Data freshness Typically as fresh as the warehouse source Often batch, though can be near real-time Snapshot needs may favor marts even if freshness is high
Testing & observability Metric tests and definition validation Pipeline tests and data quality checks Add reconciliation tests when migrating between approaches

A practical shorthand: semantic layers standardize meaning, while data marts standardize shape and performance.

What ‘logical vs physical’ changes downstream


Because semantic layers are largely logical:

  • You can change a metric definition once and roll it out broadly.
  • You usually avoid creating many copies of data (though you may still cache or materialize key models).

Because data marts are physical:

  • You get predictable performance for known workloads.
  • You pay for duplication in storage, pipelines, and backfills as requirements evolve.

How each handles governance, security, and testing


In practice, the difference is “where the truth lives”:

  • Semantic-first: metric definitions, joins, and sometimes row/column rules are defined centrally and reused. This is helpful when multiple BI tools (and AI) need the same answers.
  • Mart-first: the mart schema and transformation code become the contract. Governance is manageable when the number of marts is small, but drift increases as marts proliferate.

Either way, teams reduce disputes by:

  • Assigning owners to high-impact metrics
  • Versioning and communicating definition changes
  • Running reconciliation tests for key dashboards during migrations

When to use a semantic layer, a data mart, or both

Choose a semantic layer when…


  • You have multiple BI tools (or expect to) and need shared definitions.
  • You see metric drift (e.g., “ARR” differs by dashboard/team).
  • You want governed self-serve without exposing raw schemas.
  • Business rules change often and you need faster iteration.
  • You’re enabling AI/LLM analytics and need explicit definitions and join paths.

Example: a SaaS company with Tableau for exec dashboards and Looker/Sigma for exploration standardizes ARR, churn, and retention once, then reuses them everywhere.

Choose a data mart when…


  • You need hard performance SLAs for a small set of critical reports.
  • Workloads are predictable and benefit from pre-aggregation.
  • You need auditable “as-of” snapshots (finance, regulatory).
  • You want strict isolation between domains for compliance or chargeback.
  • You have legacy tools that expect dimensional schemas.

Example: a retail org pre-aggregates sales by store/day to keep high-traffic dashboards fast and predictable.

Use both: reference architecture pattern


A common “best of both” pattern looks like:

  1. Warehouse/lakehouse as the system of record (modeled, governed data)
  2. Curated domain models or views (clean grains and join paths)
  3. Semantic/metrics layer for shared KPI definitions and business vocabulary
  4. Selective materialization (marts, aggregates, materialized views) for the hottest dashboards
  5. Consumers: BI tools, notebooks, apps, and AI agents

In this hybrid, marts become purposeful performance layers—not the only place definitions live.

For understanding how semantic artifacts can be produced by different tools and stitched into a broader ecosystem, see semantic offerings by connector.

Pros, cons, and pitfalls

Semantic layer: pros and cons


Pros:

  • Single place to define and evolve metrics and entities
  • Better cross-tool consistency and faster onboarding for new consumers
  • Strong foundation for AI and self-serve analytics

Cons:

  • Requires ownership and governance to avoid becoming a bottleneck
  • Can create performance hotspots if definitions generate overly complex queries
  • Risk of “definition sprawl” if anyone can publish metrics without review

Data marts: pros and cons


Pros:

  • Predictable performance and stable schemas for repeatable workloads
  • Clear boundaries and isolation for domains/teams
  • Easier to support strict audit requirements with controlled snapshots

Cons:

  • Data duplication and pipeline overhead
  • Higher cost for backfills and schema changes as requirements evolve
  • KPI drift when multiple marts re-implement similar business logic

Common pitfalls (and mitigations)


  • Tool lock-in (semantic): keep metric definitions in version control; prefer portable modeling patterns; document contracts.
  • Semantic layer without governance: assign metric owners, establish review/certification, and publish deprecation rules.
  • Performance bottlenecks (semantic): use caching/materialized views for hot metrics; tune base models and join paths.
  • Mart proliferation + metric drift: rationalize the mart portfolio; converge on conformed dimensions and canonical metrics.
  • Duplicated data: prefer curated schemas/views when full physical marts aren’t required; measure storage + pipeline cost.
  • Security mismatch: align row/column policies across warehouse, marts, and the semantic interface; audit access paths.

Migration/modernization path

Step-by-step playbook (7 steps)


  1. Inventory marts, reports, and embedded metric logic

    • List top consumers, SLAs, freshness needs
    • Identify duplicate metrics across marts and dashboards

  2. Define canonical metrics and dimensions

    • Start with 10–20 business-critical KPIs
    • Assign owners and write calculation rules (including edge cases)

  3. Curate warehouse views or domain models

    • Standardize naming and grain
    • Make join paths explicit and testable

  4. Implement the semantic/metrics layer

    • Map canonical metrics to curated models
    • Attach security rules and documentation

  5. Redirect consumers incrementally

    • Migrate one domain or dashboard suite at a time
    • Keep back-compat during transition (dual-run where needed)

  6. Validate parity and monitor cost/performance

    • Reconcile key dashboards against the legacy mart outputs
    • Add automated tests and track warehouse spend for migrated queries

  7. Retire or repurpose marts

    • Keep only what you need for regulated snapshots or extreme performance
    • Convert remaining marts into governed aggregates/materializations that back semantic models

Mini example: a SaaS org with 12 departmental marts starts with revenue + retention metrics, migrates exec dashboards first, and retires half the marts once parity and performance targets are met.

How to handle performance and ‘hot’ dashboards


A semantic-first strategy doesn’t mean “no precompute.”

For hot dashboards:

  • Materialize the heaviest transformations as tables or materialized views.
  • Pre-aggregate at the right grain (daily, weekly) to control cost.
  • Keep the definition of the metric in one place, even if the execution uses aggregates.

Governance and change management


Treat shared metrics like products:

  • Define owners and SLAs for critical KPIs
  • Set up a lightweight change workflow (proposal → review → release)
  • Communicate changes to downstream consumers and run impact checks

This is the difference between “a semantic layer” and “yet another place logic lives.”

Decision framework

Scorecard criteria (with weights)


Use this scorecard to make tradeoffs explicit.

Fill in weights (1–5) based on what matters most for the initiative, then score each approach (1–5). Higher weighted totals indicate a better fit.

Criteria Weight (1–5) Semantic layer score (1–5) Data mart score (1–5) Notes
Multi-tool portability Multiple BI tools, APIs, and AI consumers favor semantic-first
KPI consistency / metric drift risk High drift risk strongly favors a governed semantic/metrics layer
Performance & concurrency needs High SLAs may favor marts or materialized semantic views
Cost sensitivity (compute vs storage + pipelines) Compare warehouse compute vs ETL/storage/backfill burden
Governance maturity Semantic layers need owners, review, and testing to scale
Security complexity More complex policies may benefit from central, auditable definitions
Freshness requirements Near-real-time often favors semantic querying; snapshots may favor marts
Regulatory/audit snapshot needs Strong audit requirements often favor controlled marts/snapshots
Team capacity (data eng/AE/BI ops) Limited pipeline capacity favors semantic + selective materialization

How to interpret the score (recommendations)


  • If portability + consistency + change velocity score highest, go semantic-first.
  • If audit snapshots + strict SLAs dominate, go mart-first (and consider adding a semantic layer later to prevent drift).
  • If both sets are high, pick hybrid: define metrics centrally, then materialize what needs isolation or guaranteed performance.

Decision examples (3 scenarios)


  • SaaS with multi-BI metric drift: semantic-first for ARR/churn/retention; keep a small snapshot mart for board reporting.
  • Finance org with regulatory reporting: keep audited marts for “as-of” financials; add semantic definitions to standardize internal analytics and reduce KPI disputes.
  • Retail with high-volume dashboards: semantic layer for shared definitions; use aggregate tables/materialized marts to keep concurrency and cost under control.

FAQs about semantic layer vs traditional data marts

1. Is a semantic layer the same as a metrics layer?


A metrics layer is usually the part focused specifically on metric definitions and calculations. A semantic layer is often broader, including entities, dimensions, relationships, and sometimes access rules. Teams use the terms inconsistently, so the most important step is agreeing on scope and where “the official definition” of each KPI lives.

2. Do semantic layers replace data warehouses or data modeling?


No. A semantic layer sits on top of a warehouse or lakehouse and depends on well-modeled, reliable data underneath. You still need modeling for grain, joins, and quality controls. The semantic layer’s job is to standardize business meaning and expose consistent concepts across consumers, not to replace core transformation and modeling work.

3. Are data marts obsolete in modern data stacks?


Not necessarily. Data marts can be the right choice for regulated snapshots, strict performance SLAs, and domain-specific workloads that benefit from precomputed structures. The risk is uncontrolled proliferation, which increases duplication and causes metric drift. Many teams modernize by shrinking the mart footprint and centralizing definitions elsewhere.

4. Can I use a semantic layer with multiple BI tools?


Yes—multi-tool environments are one of the strongest drivers for adopting a semantic layer. The key is preventing teams from re-implementing the same metrics inside each BI tool, which reintroduces drift. Standardize definitions, govern changes, and make it easy for every tool to reuse the same concepts in practice.

5. What are the biggest risks when migrating off data marts?


The biggest risks are breaking trusted reports, introducing performance regressions, and losing auditability for “as-of” reporting. Mitigate this with phased migration, reconciliation testing for critical dashboards, careful performance planning (including aggregates where needed), and retaining snapshot marts where regulatory or audit requirements demand them.

6. How do I prevent a semantic layer from becoming another bottleneck?


Treat it like a product. Assign owners to high-impact metrics, establish a lightweight review and release workflow, and add tests and versioning so changes are predictable. Plan for performance through curated base models, caching where appropriate, and clear documentation so teams don’t circumvent the layer with ad hoc definitions.

Share this article

signoff-panel-logo

Atlan is the next-generation platform for data and AI governance. It is a control plane that stitches together a business's disparate data infrastructure, cataloging and enriching data with business context and security.

Book a DemoStart Tour
 

Atlan named a Leader in 2026 Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for D&A Governance. Read Report →

[Website env: production]