We performed a comparison between IBM BPM and MEGA HOPEX based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Apache, Pega and others in Business Process Management (BPM)."I liked its robustness the most. It was a very robust platform in my experience. It seemed like a very stable and powerful tool for handling lots of concurrent users and hammering at the system."
"The most valuable features are the integration capabilities - BPM can connect with almost any legacy or advanced system."
"This solution has always been lacking in the user interface (UI), it needed to be improved a lot. However, from the acquisition of Spark UI, the UI is much better. Overall the solution is robust and has the ability to integrate with any product for complex workflows."
"IBM's deployment box is one huge black box. We can create all the services with our own code or without a codebase, however, we have a huge amount of space with practically no limitation."
"Our customers use the solution as a workflow platform to manage their processes."
"IBM BPM's best features include document sharing, management document creation, widget and barcode creation, and integration."
"The integration and design are valuable features."
"The solution is stable."
"The ability to customize is valuable."
"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."
"Its availability is very good."
"The most valuable feature of MEGA HOPEX is the publication method for static websites. You can generate the whole database into a static website. Additionally, in the new tabular entry, you don't have to put objects or links, you can go and fill a tab and the MEGA HOPEX will generate an object for you in a simple way."
"An advantage is its accessibility."
"The most valuable feature for this solution is the automatic updating and propagation of changes across the system."
"The platform is stable."
"The constant switch between Eclipse and its web versions can be annoying and confusing."
"If the processing gets better, it would be more efficient."
"I would like to see the front-end support improved because it should be fully integrated and supported."
"From the testing perspective and minor enhancements perspective, customization is something that is a little tedious as compared to new tools. In addition, various open-source tools that are available are not working with IBM BPM."
"Process Server is no more available than new products out there, but in general IBM has a high cost and complex setup."
"We care about technology and support because support is very important and a BPM is not easy to implement."
"Also, we would like to see integration with artificial intelligence, machine learning-type of technical capabilities. Right now, there are a lot Watson libraries out there. Building those integrations more, out-of-the-box, from IBM would be a good direction."
"The coaches and the user interface are the areas that can be improved a lot. It is good in terms of data processing, but the UI, scripting, and coaches are not very user-friendly and developer-friendly. Performance is always an issue. The scripting and the pattern that it uses are very tedious for new developers to understand, and it takes time to master it in depth. When comparing IBM BPM with IBM APN, a lot of things are provided out of the box in IBM APN. We don't have to write code or a Java connector to make a functionality work. It would be very helpful and time-saving for developers if IBM BPM is improved in this area to provide many functionalities or drag-and-drop options so that the developers don't have to write the code."
"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 solution is quite expensive."
"The tool's UI should be more user-friendly."
"The initial setup is a little complex."
"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."
"We have a very close relationship with MEGA representatives in Mexico, and we ask them why they don't offer impact analysis. For example, we have a server in the center and provide the client a view of what's in the peripheral area, like one cluster, application, process area, and services. We want to offer our clients that level of visibility with HOPEX."
"This product is expensive and would be improved by lowering its price."
"MEGA HOPEX's initial setup could be easier. The newer version is better but they still need to improve the process. The deployment took approximately four to eight hours."
IBM BPM is ranked 5th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 105 reviews while MEGA HOPEX is ranked 4th in Enterprise Architecture Management with 36 reviews. IBM BPM is rated 7.8, while MEGA HOPEX is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IBM BPM writes "Offers good case management and its integration with process design but there's a learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of MEGA HOPEX writes "Easy to use and robust with good features". IBM BPM is most compared with Camunda, Pega BPM, Appian, IBM Business Automation Workflow and Apache Airflow, whereas MEGA HOPEX is most compared with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, LeanIX, ARIS BPA, Visio and Avolution ABACUS.
We monitor all Business Process Management (BPM) 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.