We performed a comparison between ChangeMan ZMF and Endevor based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Software Configuration Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Scalability is great. It has absolutely met every need for us so far. We do have some concurrent development paths and we're able to flexibly assign variables. At the same time, our skeletons assemble where we want them to, so the scalability is very good."
"We audit once a year for our ChangeMan access, accurate financial programs, and all of that. Auditors really love ChangeMan for how easy it is to get through and how tight the security is on it. Our internal auditors, external auditors, and SOX editors love this solution. We're in the healthcare business, so HIPAA regulations and all such things are a big deal, and this makes all that really simple."
"The most valuable features are stability and ease of use."
"The source integrity is the most valuable feature."
"Any question that an auditor has about our processes and approvals is all stored in Endevor."
"The most valuable feature of Endevor is the software controller."
"In the last year or so, we had a need to start using a CICS web services, and mesh them in with some distributed functions on an enterprise service bus. We put the web services into Endevor and we manage that way now."
"The source management is excellent."
"Stability has been really good. I have actually never had to open an issue or report an issue since I have been running it."
"The management and information CA Endevor Software Change Manager provides is very useful"
"I would like to see them enable parallel development for online. It's available now for batch stuff on the mainframe. Jenkins, IBM, and Rocket all supposedly already have safe and workable version of Git for the mainframe. With that in mind, we need to know where our feature is."
"As such, there's nothing wrong with the product. It is great, but there are small things that can be better to make it much more friendly. The way you navigate through fields can be improved. If I'm going to stage a component over something that exists and that I've created in another library, and I want to pull it in and write it over what I've got there in my package, I've got to type in that data set name every time. That can be aggravating. It is not a big deal. The way things are sorted can also be improved. If you're doing a delete of a bunch of components, you can't sort those out by type or anything. Some things are just standard, and you can't look at them in a way that would be helpful."
"Needs more audit capability when it comes to changes to settings that are made by administrators, as many of these are done through the panels and are therefore not logged as an action against a configuration item."
"It is still kind of behind the times. It needs to catch up with all the millennials that want a distributed look and feel."
"It is difficult to find file programs and use a different tool for the setup as the compilation process is all locked up."
"Interfacing with some change control products that are not CA's, it's a little glitchy on the approvals of changes. It requires special needs for the users for approvals."
"Sometimes finding errors and output can be difficult because it spits out so many messages that it is hard to figure out which ones are the ones you need to look at and what flow did it actually take through the processor."
"The solution is very expensive."
"Endevor can improve parallel development."
"One feature of Endevor is its Backout feature. If there is a problem, it can back out the executables. The only problem with that is that it will not back out the source in Endevor. For example, you can do a back out and it will back out the executable to the previous version, but it doesn't back out the source version in Endevor. It would make it much better if when you did a back out of Endevor, it would back out both the source and the executable and keep them in sync."
Earn 20 points
ChangeMan ZMF is ranked 5th in Software Configuration Management while Endevor is ranked 1st in Software Configuration Management with 45 reviews. ChangeMan ZMF is rated 7.6, while Endevor is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of ChangeMan ZMF writes "Very flexible with Johnny-on-the-spot tech support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Endevor writes "A highly stable tool for managing mainframe software development projects that require significant expertise". ChangeMan ZMF is most compared with BMC Compuware ISPW, whereas Endevor is most compared with BMC Compuware ISPW, CA Harvest Software Change Manager, IBM Rational ClearCase and IBM Engineering Workflow Management. See our ChangeMan ZMF vs. Endevor report.
See our list of best Software Configuration Management vendors.
We monitor all Software Configuration 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.
