Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Ardoq vs erwin Data Modeler by Quest comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 3, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

Ardoq
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
12th
Average Rating
7.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
erwin Data Modeler by Quest
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
3rd
Average Rating
8.6
Number of Reviews
38
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Enterprise Architecture Management category, the mindshare of Ardoq is 3.1%, up from 3.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of erwin Data Modeler by Quest is 10.9%, up from 10.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Architecture Management
 

Featured Reviews

Anthony Houghton - PeerSpot reviewer
Oct 19, 2023
Provides stable performance and scalability but not intuitive for data modeling
Our use cases are related to LeanIX for conceptual data models, and then we moved over to Ardoq for license agreements or something because it was cheaper Overall, it covers what our enterprise architect wants. It doesn't seem good for data modeling. So, I would like to see some features related…
JorgeSanz - PeerSpot reviewer
Jun 19, 2024
Streamline data modeling and automate network changes for increased efficiency
We are implementing erwin to streamline data modeling and automate network changes for increased efficiency and comprehensive data development. This option simplifies the need for better data indexing Quest can create conceptual and physical data models to facilitate effective communication…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"It is a stable solution."
"Snapshots are the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable features are the ability to reverse engineer and do model comparison. With the reverse engineering, I can understand the databases from third-party products. With the model comparison, I can track the differences between two versions of the same database."
"The principal feature that I liked is that the solution has a very graphic interface."
"We can create mappings in erwin and possibly data dictionaries."
"It's important to create standard templates — Erwin is good at that — and you can customize them. You can create a standard template so that your models have the same look and feel. And then, anyone using the tool is using the same font and the same general layout. erwin's very good at helping enforce that."
"The most valuable features are being able to visualize the data in the diagrams and transform those diagrams into physical database deployments. These features help, specifically, to integrate the data. When the source data is accumulated and modeled, the target model is in erwin and it helps resolve the data integration patterns that are required to map the data to accommodate a model."
"I have worked with erwin Data Modeler for quite some time and familiarity is its most valuable feature."
"The logical model gives developers, as well as the data modelers, an understanding of exactly how each object interacts with the others, whether a one-to-many, many-to-many, many-to-one, etc."
"Any tool will do diagramming but I think the ability to put the stuff up in a graphical fashion, then think about it, and keep things consistent is what's valuable about it. It's too easy when you're using other methods to not have naming consistent standards and column consistent definitions, et cetera."
 

Cons

"Scalability as a standalone system is good, given the information that has been described inside Ardoq. But not the scalability as a third-party system or with integration with other systems. Because in this direction, the scalability is about zero for Ardoq."
"The training environment wasn't very intuitive, but maybe with more use, it will get better."
"It would be nice to have it on the Linux platform, not just Windows. If they can support Linux, there would be a huge market for it."
"It is not a very stable solution. I rate the stability five out of ten."
"I would like to see the ability to support more NoSQL platforms more quickly. In addition, enhancing the graphics to render more quickly would be beneficial for any user."
"In terms of new features, it would be great to have a cloud base. We should be able to put it on the cloud for better collaboration and data models sharing."
"The interface must be improved."
"I find the UI very clunky and very difficult to use. If I add columns to a table the whole workflow could be so much easier. I get frustrated using it. I've tried other tools. I've tried to get off of erwin a few times. I always come back to it because every tool has its own set of problems, and it seems like if I have to pick my poison, I stay with erwin. But so many things that are clunky with it."
"It does not have a cloud application."
"Some Source official systems give us DDLs to work with and they have contents not required to be part of the DDL before we reverse engineer in the erwin DM. Therefore, we manually make changes to those scripts and edit them, then reverse-engineer within the tool. So, it does take some time to edit these DDL scripts generated by the source operational systems. What I would suggest: It would be helpful if there were a place within the erwin tool to import the file and automatically eliminate all the unnecessary lines of code, and just have the clean code built-in to generate the table/data model."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We pay for extended support."
"Likewise, the solution is a little pricey."
"The price of erwin Data Modeler is very expensive, in particular for this part of the world."
"Price-wise, erwin Data Modeler is okay. You can purchase a single license and it is not very expensive."
"erwin is expensive compared to other solutions. We are paying almost $6,000 per seat a month."
"It is not a very expensive solution. Only the licensing and maintenance fee needs to be paid."
"Though the solution is not cheap, it's worth the money."
"The solution is expensive."
"The price should be lower in order to be on the same level as its competitors."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Architecture Management solutions are best for your needs.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
9%
Insurance Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Any experience with Strategic Project Portfolio Management Solutions?
Hi @Cheryl Joseph ​Looking at the crossover between Project and Portfolio management with EA, then Planview could be a good choice. If looking at Portfolio Management from an EA perspective then Le...
What needs improvement with Ardoq?
It doesn't seem good for data modeling. So, I would like to see some features related to that in future releases.
What do you like most about erwin Data Modeler by Quest?
Forward engineering, DDL generation, reverse engineering, and reporting are the most valuable features of the solution.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for erwin Data Modeler by Quest?
The product is expensive. I rate the product’s pricing a nine out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive.
What needs improvement with erwin Data Modeler by Quest?
The solution's model mark could be better because it crashes sometimes.
 

Also Known As

No data available
erwin DM
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Schibsted, Government of Malmo, Torvald
 Premera, America Honda Motors, Aetna, Kaiser Permanente, Dental Dental Cali, Cigna, Staples
Find out what your peers are saying about Ardoq vs. erwin Data Modeler by Quest and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.