My understanding is that it can scale. However, I did not attempt to scale the solution. I briefly used it. 

The solution is scalable. We can add a number of users. That is not a problem. However, the problem comes here with the license. The licenses are very costly. Licenses will be given based on your discussion with the salesperson. They will define the scope of your business needs and they will suggest the number of licenses for each and every license product. Each and every product will be connected and whoever connects first. For example, if I take the license for 10 people, whoever connects the first people, whoever connects the first 10, for them, that license will be consumed. The 11th person will be parked aside. He has to wait to use the license.

We have more than 150 licenses here. It’s used quite widely and does help productivity.

We have less than ten MEGA HOPEX users in our organization.

You can scale up HOPEX with no problem. We have about 3,000 applications and many components.

The solution is scalable, but it has some limitations. I rate the scalability a seven out of ten. We have ten users, including five dedicated users. The core team of five people uses the product daily. The others use it once a month.

MEGA HOPEX is a cloud solution. It's scalability is correspondingly appropriate.

I rate the tool’s scalability a seven out of ten.

MEGA HOPEX is very scalable, so it's an eight out of ten.

The scalability of MEGA HOPEX, in my opinion, falls around 8 out of 10. Before implementing MEGA for our customers, we conduct multiple sessions to understand their specific needs and focus areas. 

The scalability of MEGA HOPEX is good.

We have three users using this solution in my company.

We have had challenges with scale. We had to refactor the way that we organize the data due to that scaling issue. Originally, we had brought in every application landscape as an individual application and if the reports were timing out and we were not able to get a performance response. In fact, our users were complaining as well. We have refactored so that applications are really more of our business service construct that are grouping multiple landscapes which are becoming software installations. It's working a little bit better, but we still have struggles with some reports that are large or go out to large data sets that the system sent tends to time out. In fact, we had to put automated timers to terminate tasks that are taking too long just because it becomes ineffective. These jobs are in the background that cause other problems. Performance and scale has been an issue.

If you have an interactive application, people don't expect it to be taking hours. People expect responses within minutes. When they're sitting there for 10, 15, 20 minutes and there is nothing back, something is obviously not done right whether the architecture behind the scenes is not done right or the way it fans out to compute is not done right, something is not right. We've had performance issues and continue to struggle with it. Another example is when we do these reports, as I mentioned, obsolescence, really have to do with volume.

You have to do it on a portfolio by portfolio basis. You need to go to the top level and say, "Run this obsolescence report for everything in my environment." Then we have to say, "Do it for a subset of the data set just because of performance."

We are managing the implementation via corporate and governance. We are going to scale all of the entities in the group. We are a financial group that has a presence in different countries in Latin America with different entities and we decided to manage this implementation in an incremental model starting from some specific companies. The plan is, in 2022, to integrate all the other entities in the group.

So far, we have less than 20 people using the product, however, we are going to increase the number of personnel.

It supports the number of users that we require. Obviously, the project has matured over the past several years to where it is scalable and stable. It doesn't have defects that impede us from using the tool effectively.

We have ten users for the product. 

It is hard for us to provide a reflective answer to scalability as we have on average, 3 or 4 editors working in the system making changes at any given time and only 20ish people accessing Hopex in a read-only role. That's not really what I would consider a scalability test.

.

The solution is scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it's completely possible to do so. 

We only have one person currently working on the solution.

There have been no issues with scalability.

We have had no issues scaling it for our needs.

I've had no issues scaling it for our needs.

HOPEX is highly scalable.

The scalability is good. You can have a few users, or you can have hundreds and it's not an issue. Most of our clients are enterprise companies.

The scalability of this product is something that we found issues with during migration. I would rate the scalability of this solution at sixty percent.

It is only my team, the Quality Department, who uses this solution and there are four of us. The other people in the company refer to the reports that it produces but do not use the product directly.

HOPEX is quite scalable. The company that I am working with has approximately 200 people using this solution. Some of the are engineers, whereas others are technicians.

I have clients with 2 users and clients with more than 25 users and find it is a scalable solution. This does depend on how you use the solution. HOPEX is a suitable solution for larger scale use but you will need to pay per license. Using HOPEX, you can have an unlimited amount of users. 

We haven't tried to scale yet, but I believe it's quite big scalable for all layers of EA.