We performed a comparison between erwin Data Modeler by Quest and MEGA HOPEX based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Architecture Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"Being able to point it to a database and then pull the metadata is a valuable feature. Another valuable feature is being able to rearrange the model so that we can display it to users. We are able to divide the information into subject areas, and we can divide the data landscape into smaller chunks, which makes it easier to understand. If you had 14 subject areas, 1,000 entities, and 6,000 columns, you can't quite understand it all at once. So, being able to have the same underlying model but only display portions of it at a time is extremely useful."
"It provides flexibility with the code. You can change the code as you want. Basically, you can change SQL based on what's best for your project."
"The ability to collaborate between different members across the organization is the most valuable feature. It gives us the ability to work on the same model, regardless of where we are physically."
"The solution’s code generation ensures accurate engineering of data sources, as there is no development time. Code doesn't even have to be reviewed. We have been using this solution for so long and all the code which has been generated is accurate with the requirements. Once we generate the DDLs out of the erwin tools, the development team does a quick review of the script line by line. They will just be running the script on the database and looking into other requirements, such as the index. So, there is less effort from development side to create tables or build a database."
"We find that its ability to generate database code from a model for a wide array of data sources cuts development time. The ability to create one model in your design phase and then have it generate DDL code for Oracle or Teradata, or whichever environment you need is really nice. It's not only nice but it also saves man-hours of time. You would have to take your design and just type in manually. It has to take days off out of the work."
"The data lineage feature is very valuable."
"We use the Forward and Reverse Engineering tools to help us speed things up and create things that would have to be done otherwise by hand. E.g., getting a database into a data model format or vice versa."
"I find the IT portfolio management very valuable and helpful."
"It generates friendly websites and presents specific views of the enterprise (business, functional, applicative, technological, and infrastructure)."
"The dashboard on the homepage makes for an enhanced view at a glance of the various work functions applicable to the user."
"The initial setup was straightforward. With configuration, customizing or prepping the data and deployment, it took about one year to set up. We only needed two people to deploy and maintain the solution: one business architect and someone who specializes in customization and operations."
"The most valuable feature is that the software controls everything from a single management window."
"What's most valuable in MEGA HOPEX is that it follows the reference model where each component is defined. I also like the diagram consistency in MEGA HOPEX."
"What I find the most valuable is the process workflow. It is really good."
"This is a complete package with all of the functionality that we need."
"The reverse engineering in Oracle Databases needs improvement, as there are issues."
"We are planning to move, in 2021, into their server version, where multiple data modelers can work at the same time and share their models. It has become a pain point to merge the models from individual desktops and get them into a single data model, when multiple data modelers are working on a particular project. It becomes a nightmare for the senior data modeler to bring them together, especially when it comes to recreating them when you want to merge them."
"I am not so happy with its speed. Sometimes, it can have problems with connections."
"erwin is not as robust as a data warehousing project I've been on in the past."
"I would like to see the ability to support more NoSQL platforms more quickly. In addition, enhancing the graphics to render more quickly would be beneficial for any user."
"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 only real complaint I have is the time it takes to do a database comparison on a large model. If they could speed that up, that would be the only thing I can think of that needs improvement."
"The navigation is a little bit of a challenge. It's painful. For example, if you've got a view open and you want to try to move from side to side, the standard today is being able to drag and drop left and right. You can't really do that in the model. Moving around the model is painful because it doesn't follow the Windows model today."
"It takes a long time to learn how to use HOPEX. It's hard to work with it because the user interface is bad. For example, if you want to build a complex system diagram, you need a lot of knowledge to do this correctly and make it readable. In MEGA, you need to create a report and it takes a long time to publish it. The publishing is offline. With RDoC, everything is online."
"I cannot recall coming across any missing features."
"It has a data domain where we load our data objects onto the tool but doesn't provide data governance capabilities such as cleansing or validating data."
"We would like to see integration with other products, such as being able to use our workflow with SharePoint and Microsoft Office."
"MEGA HOPEX's problem is that it is expensive, but it's a fantastic tool."
"MEGA HOPEX can improve process simulation in the BPA module. If the solution was better we would not have to use another solution for this purpose. Simulating scenarios in the future for the to-be processes is in demand. If we can have the simulation engine built inside MEGA HOPEX, we would not have to purchase another license or solution to integrate them with each other. This would be a great improvement."
"The initial setup can be quite complex at first."
"I would like to see more regular updates released."
erwin Data Modeler by Quest is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Architecture Management with 37 reviews while MEGA HOPEX is ranked 4th in Enterprise Architecture Management with 36 reviews. erwin Data Modeler by Quest is rated 8.6, while MEGA HOPEX is rated 7.8. 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 MEGA HOPEX writes "Easy to use and robust with good features". erwin Data Modeler by Quest is most compared with SAP PowerDesigner, IDERA ER/Studio, Visio, Lucidchart and erwin Evolve by Quest, whereas MEGA HOPEX is most compared with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, LeanIX, ARIS BPA, Visio and Lucidchart. See our MEGA HOPEX vs. erwin Data Modeler by Quest report.
See our list of best Enterprise Architecture Management vendors and best Business Process Design vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Architecture Management 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.
