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

Avolution ABACUS vs erwin Evolve by Quest comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 3, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

Customer Service

No sentiment score available
Avolution ABACUS support is responsive but varies globally, with delays in Europe and Middle East, better in North America.
No sentiment score available
erwin Evolve by Quest is highly praised for exceptional customer service, knowledgeable support, and effective issue resolution despite time zone delays.
 

Room For Improvement

Sentiment score
4.5
Avolution ABACUS users seek enhanced flexibility, integration, efficiency, and regional support, expressing concerns about resource-heavy usage and pricing.
Sentiment score
4.5
Erwin Evolve requires improvements in integration, usability, modeling, security, real-time features, collaboration, and NoSQL data support.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
4.8
Avolution ABACUS is scalable with satisfied users, but limited by lack of Mac/Linux support and complex client-server scalability.
Sentiment score
5.9
Erwin Evolve by Quest is praised for scalability, efficient data modeling, and reliable performance across diverse organizational sizes.
 

Setup Cost

No sentiment score available
Avolution ABACUS offers reasonable pricing at $2000/year, competitive with other tools, and limited to licensing fees.
No sentiment score available
Erwin Evolve offers flexible licensing, varied pricing, and cost-saving options for wide access and multiple enterprise users.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.5
Avolution ABACUS is generally seen as stable, though some users experience occasional technical issues and performance slowdowns.
Sentiment score
7.8
Erwin Evolve by Quest is stable with minor initial challenges, resolved quickly, offering reliable integration and performance enhancements.
 

Valuable Features

Sentiment score
8.4
Avolution ABACUS provides customizable modeling features, dynamic traceability, and supports enterprise architecture alignment with robust integration and management tools.
Sentiment score
7.8
Erwin Evolve by Quest enhances collaboration, deployment, and decision-making with powerful analysis, integration, modeling, and comprehensive management features.
 

Categories and Ranking

Avolution ABACUS
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
8th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
erwin Evolve by Quest
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
11th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (18th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Enterprise Architecture Management category, the mindshare of Avolution ABACUS is 3.9%, down from 4.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of erwin Evolve by Quest is 2.9%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Architecture Management
 

Featured Reviews

BPMexp67 - PeerSpot reviewer
Powerful and customizable, but the interface needs to be more user-friendly and it needs dashboards
The user interface needs improvement because it is not user-friendly. They need dashboards because I think that it is really important in the market at the moment. Dashboards seem to be the solid bridge between the business and IT departments, and I didn't see anything there. The people that are going to decide to buy the product are the top management, and they are not interested in seeing the everyday operational aspects. Rather, they want to see results, which is why you need dashboards. They have an open door for integration with the model, but that's all. Integration with third-party tools needs to be improved. We did some research on this, and they have open doors with certain tools, but at least in this assessment, it was not clear how to do it. They say that you can do it, but we could not figure out how. So, this is an odd part that I think they can make more clear. I asked whether they have APIs available, or whether we had to create them from scratch, but I didn't get an answer. There is a feature called the versioning of the models, and it is not easy. It is hard because it requires a lot of technical skill to work with a model, process, or another artifact. If they want to expand in the European market then they are going to have to improve their technical support.
ScottLawson - PeerSpot reviewer
Enables us to present data and objects visually, in diagrams, and to make them available via the web. Also enables web-based editing of data.
We tried their collaborative web modeling and we used it with a few people but we tend to not use that piece. We tend to collaborate with the people and then my team of architects draws up the diagram using the modeling tool. We then iterate through those. I would like to use it, but it was a little clunky when they first rolled it out. Overall, it's more about the company having room for improvement. What they need to do is to consolidate more of their products. For example, I was just looking and I couldn't figure out what erwin DT is. It's on the website but it would help if they could put information together and make it more clear as to what products they have and how they work with other things. I hear them talking in the support forums and, when I talk to the representative, they say they're going to do a bunch of stuff but it seems the progress is slow. The changes they need to make are to take their old, legacy product, which we use, and focus a lot on it so they can transform it into a modern cloud tool so that we have fewer little pieces to deal with. They could also fix their security model. It's very confusing to get new people onto the tool and to make sure that your content isn't being exposed to the wrong people.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Architecture Management solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Government
15%
Computer Software Company
8%
Educational Organization
6%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
17%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Avolution ABACUS?
The tool's implementation is straightforward as everything is readily available. For instance, setting up a portal is seamless, allowing easy publishing and access to data. However, integrating wit...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Avolution ABACUS?
It's pricey compared to Essential, Deltek, or Essential Cloud. However, its diagramming capabilities and metamodel design make it worth it. But it's not for large user bases. It has modules for app...
What needs improvement with Avolution ABACUS?
The tool is quite extensive but doesn't have any intelligence built in. We have to design the dashboards ourselves, which is a challenge because we have to depend on the vendor for customizations. ...
What do you like most about erwin Evolve by Quest?
We can efficiently deploy business models into the databases and generate SQL scripts.
What needs improvement with erwin Evolve by Quest?
erwin Evolve by Quest could have additional features to manage the architecture of enterprises and businesses.
 

Also Known As

No data available
erwin EA, erwin Business Process, erwin Enterprise Architecture
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Barclays
AT&T, Bank of America, Chevron, Duke University, ESPN, Fidelity, GE, JP Morgan Chase, KPMG, McGraw Hill, NASA, Pfizer, Royal Bank of Scotland, Teradata, Union Pacific, Vodafone, Wells Fargo.
Find out what your peers are saying about Avolution ABACUS vs. erwin Evolve by Quest and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.