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."We use the portfolio management feature heavily."
"The most valuable feature for this solution is the automatic updating and propagation of changes across the system."
"The most valuable parts of this solution are the richness of its features and its easy interface."
"What I find the most valuable is the process workflow. It is really good."
"The tool is very simple and intuitive to use."
"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."
"Every module sets up the same information in a unique repository."
"What's most valuable in MEGA HOPEX is that it follows the reference model where each component is defined. I also like the diagram consistency in MEGA HOPEX."
"Very good repository features."
"I like the connectivity or the lineage between the models and usability."
"Provides the flexibility to create logical and conceptual data models."
"This solution has good tools for big data, where you can manage large and complex databases."
"The feature I found valuable in SAP PowerDesigner is extraction. I also like that my company hasn't faced any issues because of the clear documentation about SAP PowerDesigner."
"The most valuable feature of SAP PowerDesigner is the testing of the models, it has the best function. Reverse engineering is very helpful too."
"The most useful feature has been the detailed possibility to model almost anything regarding physical databases."
"The most valuable feature is the way you can extend it and customize it. With most modeling tools, you fit your modeling process to fit the tool. In PowerDesigner, you can make the tool fit the way you want to work."
"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."
"I would like to see more regular updates released."
"The solution lacks additional models compared to other tools."
"The interface must be improved."
"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."
"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."
"There are many areas of this solution that needs to be changed."
"Technical support could be better and more human."
"One disadvantage of SAP PowerDesigner is that you cannot reverse engineer the ALTER statements, so that's an enhancement or area for improvement I'm looking forward to seeing from the SAP team in the future. That should directly reflect on the physical data models my company builds."
"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've tried to use Power Designer to bring in images, which didn't work very well at all."
"SAP PowerDesigner could improve by making the repository easier to understand. It is difficult to understand how the repository works because when I used logical models as part of the team, we wanted to use them together and update the older versions of the data model version but it was confusing. The repository needs to be explained."
"The solution itself does not need to be improved. However, they could add support for different languages."
"The focus is more on mainstream development environments, and I see a lack of focus on the open source world. I think SAP PowerDesigner probably interfaces better with SQL Server and Db2 but not with open source databases like PostgreSQL and MySQL."
MEGA HOPEX is ranked 5th in Enterprise Architecture Management with 36 reviews while SAP PowerDesigner is ranked 4th in Enterprise Architecture Management with 32 reviews. MEGA HOPEX is rated 7.8, while SAP PowerDesigner is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of MEGA HOPEX writes "Easy to use and robust with good features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SAP PowerDesigner writes "Difficult to operate, long process to publish, but scalable". MEGA HOPEX is most compared with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, LeanIX, ARIS BPA, Avolution ABACUS and RSA Archer, whereas SAP PowerDesigner is most compared with erwin Data Modeler by Quest, Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, Visio, IDERA ER/Studio and BiZZdesign HoriZZon. 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.
