We performed a comparison between IDERA ER/Studio and MEGA HOPEX 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."Straightforward setup."
"We have been able to quickly create models for our enterprise-wide databases, even when some of them are third-party databases."
"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."
"The interface is really simple to use and it allows me to pick and choose which tables I want to reverse engineer."
"This application does a lot of things, as do competitor products, but the main reason to go with this product was the ability to create many automations, where we can improve our work and our process."
"When validating the model, the ability to provide sub-models to developers, and generate a physical model from the logical, makes it easier to review a logical model with stakeholders."
"We use the solution to create data models which describe our company's data architecture"
"Valuable features include the ability to visually represent what the database tables are going to look like and their relationships. Also, the ability to document the definitions of the tables and the columns that are in a table so that we can communicate what the data is and how it should be used."
"The initial setup was straightforward. With configuration, customizing or prepping the data and deployment, it took about one year to set up. We only needed two people to deploy and maintain the solution: one business architect and someone who specializes in customization and operations."
"This is a complete package with all of the functionality that we need."
"An advantage is its accessibility."
"HOPEX has a panel that offers various views. I think that is very good. MEGA has an app for integrating with a lot of apps. We help our clients integrate HOPEX with a different product like Apple Gateway, for example. I've been with the company for 15 years, and we connect with everything. Our clientele includes almost all of the banks in Mexico."
"The platform is stable."
"Its availability is very good."
"The most valuable feature for this solution is the automatic updating and propagation of changes across the system."
"It generates friendly websites and presents specific views of the enterprise (business, functional, applicative, technological, and infrastructure)."
"What needs the most improvement are semantic lineage and usability."
"I'd like the ability to debug the errors ourselves instead of having to call them. There are certain types of errors that, I wouldn't say they come up regularly, but when you have an error it is very often the same type of error. Knowing that it's a Type III or Type I, it would be nice to have some kind of debugging facility for us to use to find out where the problem that threw that error occurs. That would be a really cool feature."
"The model diagram because very clumsy when you save it on the team server and the models are very big."
"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."
"The number of options can be overwhelming at times. That is not necessarily a bad thing but for a newbie, it can be daunting."
"The visual presentation is a little too colorful and seems that it is dumbed down."
"They allow functionalities to be released before the full tests for catching and correcting errors are completed."
"This solution needs more precise documentation."
"MEGA HOPEX's problem is that it is expensive, but it's a fantastic tool."
"An area for improvement in MEGA HOPEX is its vast learning curve. The tool is also heavy, so that's a pain point. MEGA HOPEX is also tricky to use if you don't train for many hours."
"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."
"It has a data domain where we load our data objects onto the tool but doesn't provide data governance capabilities such as cleansing or validating data."
"Standardization is lacking. The Operational Risk Function will be more effective if it at a default level follows established Basel standards for Loss categorization, Risk Assessments, Risk Event categorization, etc."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"The tool's UI should be more user-friendly."
"Needs a friendlier import/export to other modeling tools."
IDERA ER/Studio is ranked 10th in Enterprise Architecture Management with 33 reviews while MEGA HOPEX is ranked 5th in Enterprise Architecture Management with 36 reviews. IDERA ER/Studio is rated 8.4, while MEGA HOPEX is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IDERA ER/Studio writes "The solution has important reverse engineering features, but it needs a single sign-on feature". On the other hand, the top reviewer of MEGA HOPEX writes "Easy to use and robust with good features". IDERA ER/Studio is most compared with erwin Data Modeler by Quest, Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, SAP PowerDesigner, Toad Data Modeler and erwin Evolve by Quest, whereas MEGA HOPEX is most compared with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, LeanIX, ARIS BPA, Avolution ABACUS and Visio. See our IDERA ER/Studio vs. MEGA HOPEX 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.
