We performed a comparison between OpenText ProVision and SAP PowerDesigner 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."The stability of the product is very good."
"All the features come as part of a standard license."
"OpenText ProVision's best feature is the capability to attach a variety of attributes and extract and analyze that information."
"Has a specific template that's very helpful for importing metadata."
"The most valuable feature of SAP PowerDesigner is the testing of the models, it has the best function. Reverse engineering is very helpful too."
"The feature I found valuable in SAP PowerDesigner is extraction. I also like that my company hasn't faced any issues because of the clear documentation about SAP PowerDesigner."
"Very good repository features."
"It has helped me to develop the as-is state, design its to-be state, and track the capital investment according to gap analysis."
"I mostly work on the conceptual and logical side of things, and I enjoy how easy it is to use."
"I like the property sheet capability and the user-defined attributes that you can set up."
"Provides the flexibility to create logical and conceptual data models."
"Lacks the ability to have your own in-house developments."
"Integrating with or interfacing with other tools like data management tools would be very helpful."
"OpenText ProVision's collaboration management is quite complicated and difficult to use."
"The portal of SAP PowerDesigner could be better. The tool also needs more features and integration with other products, such as Collibra. It would be interesting for SAP PowerDesigner to have more integration."
"It would be helpful if there were glossary, catalog and governance tools. It would help make it a true end-to-end product."
"This product lacks artificial intelligence that should be very good in terms of automatically identifying the classification of elements."
"The user interface could be more user-friendly."
"Regarding improvements, I suggest enhancing the connection between objects in process and data models. It's crucial to define the structure of objects, especially when dealing with standard frameworks like VMM. There should be better visualization of arrows between BPM and data modeling objects, specifying their structure and impact. For future versions, a feature similar to Bizagi, allowing users to see forms or SQL representations of objects, would be valuable for demonstrating and presenting project details to stakeholders."
"In terms of improvement, the pricing is a bit high."
"Not very intuitive or user-friendly."
"The solution itself does not need to be improved. However, they could add support for different languages."
OpenText ProVision is ranked 24th in Enterprise Architecture Management with 3 reviews while SAP PowerDesigner is ranked 5th in Enterprise Architecture Management with 33 reviews. OpenText ProVision is rated 6.4, while SAP PowerDesigner is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText ProVision writes "Good attribute attachment but problems with collaboration". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SAP PowerDesigner writes "Effective in terms of validating everything, but sometimes they don't allow us some flexibility and GUI could improve". OpenText ProVision is most compared with ARIS BPA, Visio, Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect and SAP Signavio Process Manager, whereas SAP PowerDesigner is most compared with erwin Data Modeler by Quest, Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, Visio, IDERA ER/Studio and LeanIX. See our OpenText ProVision vs. SAP PowerDesigner 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.