Alfabet FastLane vs LeanIX comparison

"The solution has provided us with a view of the truth in terms of our application portfolio."

"It offers neat visualization and referencing functionality while enabling the creation of landscape maps and showing the relationship between different applications."

"LeanIX has good usability and stability. This SaaS is intuitive, easy to use, and comes with a nice reporting feature."

"I like LeanIX's ease of use in general."

"LeanIX has a great application information architecture."

"Interfaces well with downstream systems of data."

"My favorite feature of LeanIX is its ability to induct attribute-driven surveys."

"The most valuable feature would be application portfolio management, which is where they came from, but over time, they have got artificial intelligence. They built up a very good repository. If I identify a system by name, from historical information, oftentimes, they can tell me that this is deployed with this number of CPUs and they can give me a really good profile of the application for me to put it into a change management database with very little effort."

"The most valuable features are that it's user-friendly and the user experience. It's easy to map the fact sheets."

"The initial setup is challenging because it relies on information from different stakeholders."

"The whole integration architecture view of interfaces/data exchange could be improved."

"LeanIX experiences a lot of server timeouts. Nearly every transaction needs to be done twice due to these issues."

"It would be beneficial to have additional features and capabilities to enhance mapping between applications, especially across domains where the relationships may not be direct."

"It's hard to predict the pricing of the system."

"I think the tool's main issue might be direct integrations."

"I find LeanIX's pricing expensive for the functionality it offers. However, with the acquisition by SAP, the pricing might become more affordable due to scale and tiered application pricing. Currently, it offers different tiers for the first 400 applications: 400 to 600 and 600 to 1,000, making it expensive from a pricing standpoint."

"The solution’s API integration needs to improve. I would like to see a digital screen watch feature also in the solution."

"They should improve the out of the box connectors that they provide. They should see if clients are really ready to adapt them."

"I am with a third-party so am not privy to costs."

"There is a sweet spot of where they need to be on pricing right now. They could go up a little bit in pricing, but it has to do with the cost savings, and it has to do with the practitioners using it. I use it where I get cost savings and I can justify it, but they probably have the ability to flex a 10% up channel on their sales on that. So, they could increase their settle price, not their offering price, when they sell. They can probably hold that up a little bit higher than it is because there are cost savings that we can drive from it."

"The pricing is very good. We definitely get good value for the money."

"The solution's pricing is based on a licensing model that is competitive and in line with other products."

"It cost me $91,000 a year for 300 applications. For any enterprise, 300 applications are minimal, as many have well over 1,000 applications."

"As the tool is cloud-based, its cost is more affordable."

"LeanIX uses application-based account licensing, where the cost is multiplied by the number of applications in the software implementation."

"The tool needs to include more flexible licensing options. We do not use the tool all the time. So pricing should be considered only when we use the tool."

"I would rate the pricing a one out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive."