We performed a comparison between erwin Data Modeler by Quest and SAP Signavio Process Manager based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Design solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Forward engineering, DDL generation, reverse engineering, and reporting are the most valuable features of the solution."
"We had some data integration projects, where we needed to integrate it for about 100 databases. Doing that manually is crazy; we can't do that. With erwin, it was much easier to identify which tables and columns could be used for the integration. That means a lot in terms of time and effort as well as my image to the customer, because they can see that we are providing value in a very short time."
"It is a scalable solution...The technical support team is fine."
"They have a lot of features and the most up-to-date technology integration, which I haven't seen in other products."
"We use the macros with naming standards patterns, domains, datatypes, and some common attributes. As far as other automations, a feature of the Bulk Editor is mass updates. When it sees something is nonstandard or inaccurate, it will export the better data out. Then, I can easily see which entities and attributes are not inline or standard. I can easily make changes to what was uploaded to the Bulk Editor. When taking on a new project, it can save you about a half a day on a big project across an entire team."
"The product lets us import different types of models from various databases."
"The most valuable features are being able to visualize the data in the diagrams and transform those diagrams into physical database deployments. These features help, specifically, to integrate the data. When the source data is accumulated and modeled, the target model is in erwin and it helps resolve the data integration patterns that are required to map the data to accommodate a model."
"The solution's ability to compare and synchronize data sources with data models is fantastic. We use it for that on a regular basis to make sure that changes haven't been made to the database outside of the modeling process. I can take existing databases and reverse engineer them and understand their structure within 15 minutes. If I didn't have Data Modeler it would take hours. It increases our productivity and helps in understanding our legacy application."
"The solution is user-friendly."
"The reason we chose Signavio is it's a very robust industrial-grade business process modeling data tool, with data capture behind it, as well as a collaborative nature. A lot of it comes out of the box and requires less technology involvement. It can be run well by the business users. That's what we really like about it."
"The features I find most valuable are ease of use and the Collaboration Hub."
"It is possible to do the whole drafting process at the same time in Sagnavio so you don't have a double effort of writing it once, arranging it and entering it again."
"The benefit of this application is that I can immediately describe processes and form normative documents for these processes. For me, this is definitely a plus. Сurrently, I work in a company that is not involved in the structural alignment of business processes. They have huge gaps in this. Nothing is described and there are no norms. Therefore, the formation of regulatory documents, rules, and descriptions of processes, not only in graphic form, but also in documentary form is an absolute plus. I have not found this in other process programs."
"When comparing my experience with Celonis and Signavio, I can discern the distinctions between these two platforms. However, I'm unable to differentiate between ARAs and add-ons, as that falls outside my scope of familiarity. Regarding Celonis, it comes with its set of advantages and disadvantages. Notably, it boasts robust features like action flows, task mining, and seamless integration with AML programming. Conversely, Signavio lacks action flows and instead relies on action segments and tasks for interaction. This discrepancy is a significant factor setting Selenium and SecureView apart. In the context of Signavio, it offers a combination of BPMN and process discovery, a feature absent in Celonis. This tandem of BPMN and process insight contributes to Signavio’S potency. Meanwhile, Celonis primarily features the process miner tool, setting it apart from Signavio. These variations collectively outline the numerous differences existing between Celonis and Signavio."
"This is one of the best solutions and it is easy to implement."
"There are many valuable features, of course. I would say the main value of Signavio is to have your current process map in a way that is easy to read and derive optimization actions to make it leaner, faster, more user friendly, etc. Another great feature is the visualization, which is easy to see and read. How they map the process is also very user friendly, with drag-and-drop functionality. Also, it's a very self-explanatory, user-friendly solution."
"erwin is not as robust as a data warehousing project I've been on in the past."
"I find the UI very clunky and very difficult to use. If I add columns to a table the whole workflow could be so much easier. I get frustrated using it. I've tried other tools. I've tried to get off of erwin a few times. I always come back to it because every tool has its own set of problems, and it seems like if I have to pick my poison, I stay with erwin. But so many things that are clunky with it."
"The interface must be improved."
"The report generation has room for improvement. I think it was version 8 where you had to use Crystal Reports, and it was so painful that the company I was with just stayed on version 7 until version 9 came out and they restored the data browser. That's better than it was, but it's still a little cumbersome. For example, you run it in erwin, then export it out to Excel, and then you have to do a lot of cosmetic modification. If you discover that you missed a column, then you would have to rerun the whole thing. Sometimes what you would do is just go ahead and fix it in the report, then you have to remember to go back and fix it in the model. Therefore, I think the report generation still could use some work."
"This is a very complex product."
"I love the product. I love the ability to get into the code, make it automated, and make it do what I want. I would like to see them put some kind of governance over the ability to make changes to the mart tables with the API, so that instead of just using the modeler's rights to a table -- it has a separate set of rights for API access. That would give us the ability to put governance around API applications. Right now a person with erwin and Excel/VBA has the ability to make changes to models with the API if they also have rights to make changes to the model from erwin. It's a risk."
"I would like to have more data sources from other, different vendors. In recent years, the vendor has reduced the number of data sources, and I would like to have more data sources for every brand. For example, with Oracle, I would like to have compatibility for many versions, including old ones, not just the most recent."
"The solution's model mark could be better because it crashes sometimes."
"It would be beneficial to have a defined leveling or hierarchy system to facilitate better understanding and analysis. More openness and flexibility would enhance its capabilities."
"There is a lot of room for improvement. We've submitted a lot of OSS requests for special inputs we need, like glossary or dictionary entries in Quick Model. Currently, that's not functional."
"It could use a better user interface, one that is more efficient."
"I would like to see more integration with the process manager in terms of the workflow accelerator."
"It is sometimes difficult to find the match between what is possible and what is wanted, or what is helpful with the product, so better documentation may assist in this regard."
"The tool's navigation could be improved."
"There is a need for more varied access packages. The access packages that I have used are not cheap enough. They also provide a complete set of tools that are not always used. Sometimes, you need more segregated things, e.g., Signavio includes functionality for a company that has not yet matured. Since there are no basic packages, the company must pay for a package that is not fully used. Typically, process management is started in a company of a certain maturity."
"I would like to see more predictive analytics. The tool already has all the process maps, but it could offer a more proactive improvement offering. For example, they could put a little bit more machine learning behind it."
erwin Data Modeler by Quest is ranked 9th in Business Process Design with 37 reviews while SAP Signavio Process Manager is ranked 6th in Business Process Design with 58 reviews. erwin Data Modeler by Quest is rated 8.6, while SAP Signavio Process Manager is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of erwin Data Modeler by Quest writes "The product lets users import different types of models, but it is expensive, and the interface must be improved". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SAP Signavio Process Manager writes "Has many functionalities and is used to model processes to the former operating model". erwin Data Modeler by Quest is most compared with SAP PowerDesigner, IDERA ER/Studio, Lucidchart, Visio and Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, whereas SAP Signavio Process Manager is most compared with Celonis, ARIS BPA, Camunda, Visio and ADONIS. See our SAP Signavio Process Manager vs. erwin Data Modeler by Quest report.
See our list of best Business Process Design vendors.
We monitor all Business Process Design reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
