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

Avolution ABACUS vs QualiWare X 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:
 

Categories and Ranking

Avolution ABACUS
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
8th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
QualiWare X
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
21st
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Management (BPM) (36th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Enterprise Architecture Management category, the mindshare of Avolution ABACUS is 3.9%, down from 4.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of QualiWare X is 1.0%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Architecture Management
 

Featured Reviews

JoseCamacho - PeerSpot reviewer
Supports evaluating architecture through corporate objectives
I conducted an evaluation of enterprise architecture at the European Court in Luxembourg, reviewing and analyzing existing implementations to identify potential improvements and providing recommendations I conduct evaluations to identify potential improvements and make recommendations, forming a…
Gavin Bérubé - PeerSpot reviewer
Works as a reference for architecture but not very intuitive
We use the solution as a reference for architecture so that we can connect business data applications. The tool helps us to know how these applications should be built. We use it mainly as reference material.  I like the solution's traceability.  The solution is not easy and intuitive to use. I…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The technical support is very good. They are responsive and the answers they provide are detailed."
"The ease of modeling and the ease of showing interconnectivity and relationships is the most valuable. It is fairly simple and out of the box. It is customizable in many ways. It is a pretty good tool."
"Scalable and stable tool for roadmapping and modeling, with a good dashboard, end-to-end impact analysis, and portfolio management."
"It is a very stable solution...The initial setup of Avolution ABACUS is very easy."
"Avolution ABACUS allows for flexible enterprise architecture analysis."
"The most valuable feature is the traceability, you can trace any object to the other."
"Avolution ABACUS allows for flexible enterprise architecture analysis."
"If you face new challenges or issues then you can dynamically customize according to the business needs."
"I like the solution's traceability."
 

Cons

"The usability of the tool is an area with shortcomings that need improvement."
"While Avolution ABACUS is flexible, it can be complex to work with as it requires knowledge of specific configurations to customize the product."
"While this is one of the most powerful tools on the market it does not integrate well with Microsoft Office or others."
"I use reference models, which are taxonomies, in my EA work. It is a reference model/taxonomy of things with capabilities, sub capabilities, and sub-sub capabilities, so you're working it down. I haven't yet found a simple way to implement that in Abacus. It could be that it is there, but I don't know how to do it."
"Having more control over page size is lacking in this product. Print utilization also needs to be improved."
"The reporting could be easier to configure."
"While Avolution ABACUS is flexible, it can be complex to work with as it requires knowledge of specific configurations to customize the product."
"In the future, there could be improvements in integration and enhancements."
"The solution is not easy and intuitive to use. I would also like the software to have a reference metamodel that can guide the modeling."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There is a subscription for this solution. We are on an annual subscription because you sometimes receive special offers the longer you subscribe."
"I'm paying on a yearly basis. I don't know whether it's a highly expensive tool or not. I'm getting a single version of it, and I don't have the enterprise part on it because I don't need the server component, and I don't need a web browser component. My estimate would be that it's a very reasonably priced tool given that you don't need to have licenses with everyone in order to get the information and the decision support capabilities out of the tool. You use the enterprise edition on top of the studio, which is the heart of the tool. I am not aware of any additional costs."
"My company makes annual payments toward the licensing costs of the solution. Considering the product's capabilities, its prices are very reasonable."
"The cost of Avolution ABACUS is reasonable, given the features they offer in comparison to other tools."
"It is expensive."
"To get a fairly extensive license for Enterprise Architects from Spark is approximately US $400.00, maybe less, but with Avolution Abacus it was approximately US $2000.00 per year, and that includes maintenance with the Abacus tool."
"It is competitive. It is not chump change. I am just using the studio version. I am not using the full enterprise version, which would probably cost me three times more for single-use, but it gives a lot more capability and analysis. It is server-based as well, and it is reasonably priced compared to a lot of the other tools. There are other tools that have other sorts of capabilities, but in order to use them, you'd really have to have like 50 users for the price to become justifiable."
"This solution is expensive for some people's budgets and they need to offer a Lite version at a cheaper price"
"I would rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten since it's pretty expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Architecture Management solutions are best for your needs.
831,265 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Government
13%
Computer Software Company
8%
Educational Organization
6%
Government
34%
Computer Software Company
14%
Construction Company
5%
Financial Services Firm
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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?
While Avolution ABACUS is flexible, it can be complex to work with as it requires knowledge of specific configurations to customize the product. It would be beneficial to have seminars or other met...
What do you like most about QualiWare X?
I like the solution's traceability.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for QualiWare X?
I would rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten since it's pretty expensive.
What needs improvement with QualiWare X?
The solution is not easy and intuitive to use. I would also like the software to have a reference metamodel that can guide the modeling.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Barclays
Emiliambiente, OLI, Galletti, Hiref, Bugatti, Argelli, Culligan Italiana, Sal, Stefal Cablaggi, BrainBee Automotive, Varvel, Campagnola, Favini, G.F., Gruppo ROLD
Find out what your peers are saying about Avolution ABACUS vs. QualiWare X and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
831,265 professionals have used our research since 2012.