MartinMonteiroSr Domain Specialist at a healthcare company
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"We are on the Flex licenses."
"We have unlimited licenses for all of our functionalities. Since we went global, we went with that model."
"The cost of other pieces and integrating them in needs improvement."
"We have portfolio managers, resource managers, project managers, and time reporting licenses. These are the licenses that we have."
"I don't think we have necessarily purchased everything that I would have liked to have seen."
"We have several hundred licenses. It costs us several hundred thousand dollars a year."
"We overbought our licenses. We looked at our needs three to four years down the road and tried based our contract on that. However, we were over aggressive. We use about a third of the licenses that we have. We're looking to adjust the makeup so we can start utilizing the amount of money that we are spending. Right now, we're overspending, and my organization is not seeing the value in Planview because we are paying so much for licenses that we're not using."
"Our licensing costs are probably $150,000 to $180,000 a year with 270 licenses total."
"This solution is expensive for some people's budgets and they need to offer a Lite version at a cheaper price"
"To get a fairly extensive license for Enterprise Architects from Spark is approximately US $400.00, maybe less, but with Avolution Abacus it was approximately US $2000.00 per year, and that includes maintenance with the Abacus tool."
"The pricing is quite good compared to the competition and it is part of the reason we chose the product."
"It is competitive. It is not chump change. I am just using the studio version. I am not using the full enterprise version, which would probably cost me three times more for single-use, but it gives a lot more capability and analysis. It is server-based as well, and it is reasonably priced compared to a lot of the other tools. There are other tools that have other sorts of capabilities, but in order to use them, you'd really have to have like 50 users for the price to become justifiable."
"There is a subscription for this solution. We are on an annual subscription because you sometimes receive special offers the longer you subscribe."
Earn 20 points
The SAP Enterprise Architecture Designer Web application is a user-friendly, collaborative tool for creating and maintaining a complete landscape architecture that is easy to capture and understand visually. People in a wide variety of roles can readily use it, so all necessary stake-holders can participate directly in the planning and design of the architecture. You can manage change by providing effective governance of your architecture changes and calculating their costs and benefits, so that you can keep implementation efficient and cost-effective. Through robust traceability in this multirole, intuitive, collaborative environment, you gain the insight to support compliance at the outset and throughout architecture change cycles.
Avolution ABACUS is ranked 6th in Architecture Management with 5 reviews while SAP Enterprise Architecture Designer is ranked 18th in Architecture Management. Avolution ABACUS is rated 7.6, while SAP Enterprise Architecture Designer is rated 0.0. 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, Avolution ABACUS is most compared with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, LeanIX, BiZZdesign HoriZZon, MEGA HOPEX and iServer, whereas SAP Enterprise Architecture Designer is most compared with SAP PowerDesigner, Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect and QualiWare X.
See our list of best Architecture Management vendors.
We monitor all 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.