We performed a comparison between Avolution ABACUS and IDERA ER/Studio based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about LeanIX, Sparx Systems, erwin by Quest and others in Enterprise Architecture Management."The most valuable feature is the traceability, you can trace any object to the other."
"There are plenty of features available such as the ability to test applications for issues and a user-friendly dashboard."
"The product is easy to use and well-structured for the integrations we need it to make."
"The ease of modeling and the ease of showing interconnectivity and relationships is the most valuable. It is fairly simple and out of the box. It is customizable in many ways. It is a pretty good tool."
"The tool's implementation is straightforward as everything is readily available. For instance, setting up a portal is seamless, allowing easy publishing and access to data. However, integrating with other tools like BI, Power BI, or Grafana requires setting up pipelines between them."
"The most valuable feature is that it has a customizable meta-model, which is key."
"Scalable and stable tool for roadmapping and modeling, with a good dashboard, end-to-end impact analysis, and portfolio management."
"If you face new challenges or issues then you can dynamically customize according to the business needs."
"The data modeling and reverse engineering features are most important to us."
"One of the valuable features is inheritance when joining tables. When setting up RI and domains and rules, ER/Studio does a lot of the grunt, boilerplate code that would otherwise have to be hand-coded."
"It's easy to model and has a user-friendly interface. I like the team portal because, once we upload, the entire team can see the model."
"The tool is simple to use."
"Using this product has improved the way we maintain our models because they have a place where we can keep all of them, and they can be viewed using the web interface."
"We can track changes to our data models and tie those changes back to specific tasks or efforts that we identify."
"It does the job."
"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."
"They should take more initiative to implement things that competing products have already come out with."
"In the future, there could be improvements in integration and enhancements."
"The usability of the tool is an area with shortcomings that need improvement."
"Avolution ABACUS has the drawback of needing data filtering at the development level, unlike some tools that offer filtering at deployment. Two areas where Avolution ABACUS could be improved are regional support and flexibility in model selection. Sometimes, it's challenging to access support or updates in certain regions, which can slow down progress. Additionally, it would be beneficial if the tool allowed more flexibility in selecting multiple models within a single unit."
"It doesn't have the simulation capability, which would be helpful in doing some business process analysis and improvements."
"Having more control over page size is lacking in this product. Print utilization also needs to be improved."
"I use reference models, which are taxonomies, in my EA work. It is a reference model/taxonomy of things with capabilities, sub capabilities, and sub-sub capabilities, so you're working it down. I haven't yet found a simple way to implement that in Abacus. It could be that it is there, but I don't know how to do it."
"If they want to expand in the European market then they are going to have to improve their technical support."
"The model diagram because very clumsy when you save it on the team server and the models are very big."
"It would be helpful if they could create a generic JSON database type, as a target database, rather than a specific one like Mongo."
"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."
"The number of options can be overwhelming at times. That is not necessarily a bad thing but for a newbie, it can be daunting."
"We did have a big issue when we upgraded to the 2016 version. The Team Server portion never did quite install correctly, and/or the database was corrupted, and we never figured it out."
"They allow functionalities to be released before the full tests for catching and correcting errors are completed."
"The solution could be sped up, as it is a little slow (e.g., when it's doing its database compare)."
"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."
Avolution ABACUS is ranked 8th in Enterprise Architecture Management with 13 reviews while IDERA ER/Studio is ranked 10th in Enterprise Architecture Management with 33 reviews. Avolution ABACUS is rated 8.2, while IDERA ER/Studio is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Avolution ABACUS writes " An out of the box tool that creates reports on the fly that can help your client make better decisions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IDERA ER/Studio writes "The solution has important reverse engineering features, but it needs a single sign-on feature". Avolution ABACUS is most compared with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, LeanIX, Visio, MEGA HOPEX and ARIS BPA, whereas IDERA ER/Studio is most compared with erwin Data Modeler by Quest, Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, SAP PowerDesigner, erwin Evolve by Quest and Aqua Data Studio.
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.