We performed a comparison between MEGA HOPEX and Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect 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."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."
"We use the portfolio management feature heavily."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the reuse of common enterprise components and entities."
"The platform is stable."
"The most valuable feature is that the software controls everything from a single management window."
"It generates friendly websites and presents specific views of the enterprise (business, functional, applicative, technological, and infrastructure)."
"An advantage is its accessibility."
"It is very interactive."
"Its traversability is most valuable. I can use ArchiMate, and I can create a UML model. ArchiMate is for logical enterprise architecture, UML is for software engineering, and BPMN is for business processes. I can build it to have multiple models, and they are also traversable, which is not something that every tool allows. If there is a huge organization, you can segment it and have separate models for business technology or internal resource management system. You don't need to keep them in one model, and you can decide to segregate them."
"It has led some teams to do better code reviews - to be less focussed on coding conventions (syntax) and more focussed on the semantics because of the abstraction level clear design affords."
"The profiles allow me to customize the tool to the corporate environment instead of the other way around saving huge amounts of time and energy on trying to turn dozens of individuals into TOGAF, ArchiMate or Zachman experts, or even Sparx EA experts."
"The most valuable features are the flexibility and adaptability of Sparx Enterprise Architect."
"Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect supports multiple modeling languages like ArchiMate for database design, software lifecycle visualization, and team management."
"The TOGAF ADM model is most valuable. It is also very cheap as compared to other options in the market."
"The solution is easy to use, supports SysML and UML, and is able to connect to MATLAB. This is very important for us."
"The advantages of Enterprise are that it's cheaper and much more practical than MagicDraw."
"I cannot recall coming across any missing features."
"I would like to see more regular updates released."
"MEGA HOPEX's initial setup could be easier. The newer version is better but they still need to improve the process. The deployment took approximately four to eight hours."
"The training materials and learning process need improvement."
"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."
"MEGA HOPEX can improve process simulation in the BPA module. If the solution was better we would not have to use another solution for this purpose. Simulating scenarios in the future for the to-be processes is in demand. If we can have the simulation engine built inside MEGA HOPEX, we would not have to purchase another license or solution to integrate them with each other. This would be a great improvement."
"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."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"What should be improved are the integration capabilities of the solution with Bizagi."
"The modeling tool is targeted toward a sophisticated user."
"The templates for documentation should be enhanced to include complex documents such as template RFP, or Non functional requirements template."
"If you just want to create some diagrams with shapes and arrows, then use Visio."
"The documentation needs a bit of improvement. What I find is that when I'm trying to do something specific for some part of a project, in terms of documentation, it's kind of hard to get at figuring out if you don't use it all the time."
"The UI is a little bit outdated. It should be more fresh and clean."
"I think that collaboration can be better."
"Its usability needs to be improved. For non-technical users, it is a little difficult to understand how Enterprise Architect works. Users who are not engineers find it difficult to understand how this tool works. This is something they need to work on. They can develop a BPM model to simulate processes."
More Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect Pricing and Cost Advice →
MEGA HOPEX is ranked 4th in Enterprise Architecture Management with 36 reviews while Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Architecture Management with 97 reviews. MEGA HOPEX is rated 7.8, while Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect 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 Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect writes "Easy to set up and had no issues with stability, but it's not a very friendly tool, and its database modeling and entity-relationship modeling functions need improvement". MEGA HOPEX is most compared with LeanIX, ARIS BPA, Visio, Avolution ABACUS and SAP Signavio Process Manager, whereas Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is most compared with Visual Paradigm, Visio, No Magic MagicDraw, Lucidchart and IBM Rational System Architect. See our MEGA HOPEX vs. Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect report.
See our list of best Enterprise Architecture Management vendors and best Business Process Design 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.
