We performed a comparison between MEGA HOPEX 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 most valuable feature of this solution is the reuse of common enterprise components and entities."
"The most valuable feature is the completeness of HOPEX's meta-model. It's a strong meta-model that's rigid but comprehensive. It's a logical fit for our understanding of how we want things modeled in our database."
"We use the portfolio management feature heavily."
"I find the IT portfolio management very valuable and helpful."
"What I find the most valuable is the process workflow. It is really good."
"The most valuable parts of this solution are the richness of its features and its easy interface."
"The most valuable feature is that the software controls everything from a single management window."
"It generates friendly websites and presents specific views of the enterprise (business, functional, applicative, technological, and infrastructure)."
"It allows us to have proper documentation in terms of the databases."
"The most valuable features of the solution are it's built very well, easy to use, and simple to describe freely what is needed in logical and physical data models."
"In terms of operational efficiency and cause savings or return on investment, I can say that with SAP PowerDesigner, our company saves a lot of time."
"Very good repository features."
"I do a data-centric design, so for me, the data analysis and design tools are the most valuable features."
"Has a specific template that's very helpful for importing metadata."
"The solution is a very pragmatic tool. It's quite easy to use."
"It can automate many routine tasks and save human resources to focus on real problems."
"The training materials and learning process need improvement."
"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."
"Better documentation and training would be helpful."
"They do tend to push people to their professional services, instead of helping the customers with their problems. I understand this is their business. At the same time, however, they need to work on fact sheets or offer some program to help the customers who want to implement it themselves and to make it run properly in their environment."
"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."
"It would be great if this solution could integrate with other tools such as ITSM (ServiceNow) or CMDB."
"The data governance should be improved, like ER/Studio."
"In terms of improvement, the pricing is a bit high."
"SAP PowerDesigner can improve the ease of use. It is not the best tool on the market because it is tough to navigate and use. A beginner would not be able to use it well, it requires some experience. If the solution was more user-friendly it would be able to be used by more audiences. I do not think many people are aware of this solution and they should use it."
"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."
"I have found the solution not easy to use. When publishing you have to download the HTML, make adjustments against the updated HTML, convert it to HTML, then finally paste the HTML. There is not an on-the-fly function available to bypass the step-by-step converting process that other solutions have."
"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."
"The solution itself does not need to be improved. However, they could add support for different languages."
"Technical support needs improvement."
MEGA HOPEX is ranked 4th in Enterprise Architecture Management with 37 reviews while SAP PowerDesigner is ranked 5th in Enterprise Architecture Management with 34 reviews. MEGA HOPEX is rated 7.8, while SAP PowerDesigner is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of MEGA HOPEX writes "Interactive with good functionality and helps with productivity". 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". MEGA HOPEX is most compared with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, LeanIX, ARIS BPA, Visio and ARIS Cloud, whereas SAP PowerDesigner is most compared with erwin Data Modeler by Quest, Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, Visio, IDERA ER/Studio and erwin Evolve by Quest. See our MEGA HOPEX 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.