We performed a comparison between IDERA ER/Studio 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."Developing new dimensional models; for the data we're hosting, dimensional modeling is more useful."
"We can track changes to our data models and tie those changes back to specific tasks or efforts that we identify."
"We use the solution to create data models which describe our company's data architecture"
"The interface is really simple to use and it allows me to pick and choose which tables I want to reverse engineer."
"We found a lot of duplication, a lot of non-conformity in the way our databases were designed. By identifying these situations, we're able to go back in and try to create a more standardized solution."
"We have a database design group of about 15 people. The Repository enables multiple people to work on the same model at the same time. We have fully integrated models, so we have one model for the enterprise data warehouse, one model for MDM, with a lot of sub-models in these things. People work on different parts of the model at different times. So the repository enables us to share the models, and keep track of what everybody is working on."
"The reverse engineering is the most important feature."
"We are able to document the data lineage and data flows of our data from one system to another."
"The solution is scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it's completely possible to do so."
"This is a complete package with all of the functionality that we need."
"Every module sets up the same information in a unique repository."
"It generates friendly websites and presents specific views of the enterprise (business, functional, applicative, technological, and infrastructure)."
"Customer support is fantastic. They are very helpful whenever we get on the line with the support team."
"It is very interactive."
"The solution itself was easy to use."
"What I find the most valuable is the process workflow. It is really good."
"It isn't easy to compare the thousands of tables in the model against the database. The tool should improve the synchronization within the large organization"
"When building the relationships there should be a little more flexibility."
"It would be helpful if they could create a generic JSON database type, as a target database, rather than a specific one like Mongo."
"What I would like to see improved is the reliability of the releases, releases that are a little less buggy."
"One limitation I have found in ER/Studio is that when you want to make some changes to the table definitions, you have to go item by item. You cannot do it globally. Another issue concerns defining the foreign keys between the different tables. It is a little more tedious in the ER/Studio than in ERrwin. With ERwin it is direct."
"The visual presentation is a little too colorful and seems that it is dumbed down."
"I'd like the ability to debug the errors ourselves instead of having to call them. There are certain types of errors that, I wouldn't say they come up regularly, but when you have an error it is very often the same type of error. Knowing that it's a Type III or Type I, it would be nice to have some kind of debugging facility for us to use to find out where the problem that threw that error occurs. That would be a really cool feature."
"Tech support is a sticking point with me. I am really disappointed in the tech support. We pay for the Platinum level. It takes hours to get a response."
"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."
"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."
"Standardization is lacking. The Operational Risk Function will be more effective if it at a default level follows established Basel standards for Loss categorization, Risk Assessments, Risk Event categorization, etc."
"In my experience, I've encountered difficulties with consuming custom packages in MEGA HOPEX, which leads to redundant work when deploying them to production. This is an area where improvement is needed. While version six offers better UI and UX, resolving this issue should be a priority. I believe it's important to fully explore MEGA HOPEX's capabilities before suggesting new ones."
"The tool usability is weak and it also has a high learning curve."
"I would like to see more regular updates released."
"Scalability can be a problem sometimes."
"The product must improve integration with other tools."
IDERA ER/Studio is ranked 10th in Enterprise Architecture Management with 33 reviews while MEGA HOPEX is ranked 4th in Enterprise Architecture Management with 36 reviews. IDERA ER/Studio is rated 8.4, while MEGA HOPEX is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IDERA ER/Studio writes "The solution has important reverse engineering features, but it needs a single sign-on feature". On the other hand, the top reviewer of MEGA HOPEX writes "Easy to use and robust with good features". IDERA ER/Studio is most compared with erwin Data Modeler by Quest, SAP PowerDesigner, Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, Toad Data Modeler and erwin Evolve by Quest, whereas MEGA HOPEX is most compared with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, LeanIX, ARIS BPA, Visio and Avolution ABACUS. See our IDERA ER/Studio vs. MEGA HOPEX report.
See our list of best Enterprise Architecture Management 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.
