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

IBM Rational System Architect vs IDERA ER/Studio comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 3, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM Rational System Architect
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
20th
Average Rating
7.4
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
IDERA ER/Studio
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
9th
Average Rating
8.4
Number of Reviews
35
Ranking in other categories
Database Development and Management (15th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Enterprise Architecture Management category, the mindshare of IBM Rational System Architect is 1.9%, down from 2.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IDERA ER/Studio is 4.1%, down from 4.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Architecture Management
 

Featured Reviews

RK
Jul 31, 2019
Modeling is useful, but many features need improvement and technical support is lacking
I am using this solution for building enterprise architecture models. It is an on-premises deployment model The most valuable feature of this solution is modeling. I find that almost every feature related to the models requires improvement. For example, I would like to see more trendy models,…
Aaron Cutshall - PeerSpot reviewer
Jun 17, 2024
Used for data modeling and has a scripting language to write your own scripts
The solution has streamlined our data modeling processes quite a bit. It's a central focus in our data modeling and data cataloging efforts. The tool's reverse engineering capability to bring in existing database structures and create models from them has benefitted our data architecture needs. With the tool's data dictionary capability, we're able to maintain consistency in our models, name use, and actual data domains. The solution's reverse engineering helps with understanding legacy databases. In fact, I've been asked to reverse-engineer several more legacy databases so that we can have them modeled and cataloged. The solution is deployed on the cloud server, but it’s only within our network. The solution has a lot of capabilities. I like the fact that it has a scripting language that allows you to automate and write your own scripts. I think that's been a big bonus for us. I highly recommend the solution because of its capability for logical models, where you can put your business definitions and logic. While less expensive, some other tools can't do that. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The user interface is good. It's both clear and comprehensible. It's easy to work with."
"The solution is pretty stable."
"We have seen ROI with this solution over the years that we have used it."
"There are a lot of features I find valuable, but I think that the metamodel customization is one of the best features that the solution offers."
"This application does a lot of things, as do competitor products, but the main reason to go with this product was the ability to create many automations, where we can improve our work and our process."
"The data modeling and reverse engineering features are most important to us."
"Straightforward setup."
"We have a database design group of about 15 people. The Repository enables multiple people to work on the same model at the same time. We have fully integrated models, so we have one model for the enterprise data warehouse, one model for MDM, with a lot of sub-models in these things. People work on different parts of the model at different times. So the repository enables us to share the models, and keep track of what everybody is working on."
"We found a lot of duplication, a lot of non-conformity in the way our databases were designed. By identifying these situations, we're able to go back in and try to create a more standardized solution."
"It's easy to model and has a user-friendly interface. I like the team portal because, once we upload, the entire team can see the model."
"It's much easier to develop the database structure and change it on the fly, rather than doing it manually in SQL Server itself. That saves time."
"It does the job."
 

Cons

"The reverse engineering of the database is already there, but in the next release I would like to see some pilot supplied with the solution in order to address any database."
"There needs to be more information at the outset about how to use the solution and how to deploy it. The deployment process needs improvement."
"The solution needs to better integrate with other products, like Microsoft."
"This solution can be more user-friendly and easier to use, with better dashboards."
"When building the relationships there should be a little more flexibility."
"It would be helpful if they could create a generic JSON database type, as a target database, rather than a specific one like Mongo."
"The model diagram because very clumsy when you save it on the team server and the models are very big."
"I would like to upload, a database with about 3,000 tables. It takes so much time and, finally, it freezes the whole solution so that I actually cannot work with that environment. For the data warehouse, it's fine because I have 20 or 30 tables. It works fine. But, when I reverse-engineer the database with 3,000 tables, it freezes and it's hard to upload and reverse-engineer such environments in ER/Studio."
"The number of options can be overwhelming at times. That is not necessarily a bad thing but for a newbie, it can be daunting."
"This solution needs more precise documentation."
"The solution's reporting could be improved because the report writer is terrible."
"Tech support is a sticking point with me. I am really disappointed in the tech support. We pay for the Platinum level. It takes hours to get a response."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is bad and ten is good, I would rate the licensing cost as a seven or eight. It's not too expensive for us."
"I use the product's trial version."
"It is priced fairly. It's around the same as erwin and other competitors' costs."
"I am currently using the trial version, but this solution is definitely worth considering for the price point."
"At my previous company using ER/Studio, a database compare took four hours before using the product and 15 minutes after using the product."
"Pricing is on point, but do your due diligence - not every developer needs the tool."
"As an individual user, the renewal is a little costly."
"The solution’s pricing is high."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Architecture Management solutions are best for your needs.
814,763 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Financial Services Firm
22%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with IDERA ER/Studio?
Since the solution was originally developed in the eighties and nineties and hasn't changed much since then, it could use an overhaul. The solution is not so strong at creating modeling views and d...
 

Also Known As

Rational System Architect
IDERA ER Studio, ER/Studio, ER/Studio Enterprise Team Edition
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Wuxi Lake Cloud, Nationwide, ETI, IDS Scheer
Newmont Mining, Entrust, Accolade, TalkTalk, Catalina, Protective Life, NTT Data, dir systèmes, Microsoft; American Express, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Coriant, Fedex, GlaxoSmithKline, PepsiCo, Prudential, Wells Fargo
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational System Architect vs. IDERA ER/Studio and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
814,763 professionals have used our research since 2012.