We performed a comparison between MEGA HOPEX and SAP Signavio Process Manager based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Design solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is the completeness of HOPEX's meta-model. It's a strong meta-model that's rigid but comprehensive. It's a logical fit for our understanding of how we want things modeled in our database."
"The tool is very simple and intuitive to use."
"The solution is scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it's completely possible to do so."
"The most valuable features of MEGA HOPEX are the seamless VPA module and the good user experience. There are built-in connections that provide integration with other platforms, such as ServiceNow. There is a lot of customization available allowing a lot of freedom. The solution is updated frequently adding new features. For example, the feature GraphQL can be integrated into other solutions, such as ManageEngine for ITSM solutions. You are able to use GraphQL to connect APIs and query the APIs."
"The most valuable parts of this solution are the richness of its features and its easy interface."
"This is a complete package with all of the functionality that we need."
"An advantage is its accessibility."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the reuse of common enterprise components and entities."
"Process management/Process governance is what we think Signavio is very good at."
"I love the collaboration function, especially the option to invite people who don't have any users on the licenses."
"It is a very scalable solution."
"The reason we chose Signavio is it's a very robust industrial-grade business process modeling data tool, with data capture behind it, as well as a collaborative nature. A lot of it comes out of the box and requires less technology involvement. It can be run well by the business users. That's what we really like about it."
"I use SAP Signavio Process Manager to model processes to the former operating model."
"It is possible to do the whole drafting process at the same time in Sagnavio so you don't have a double effort of writing it once, arranging it and entering it again."
"The interface is very intuitive and includes a drag-and-drop function."
"The collaboration function in the project views is valuable because people can comment on the processes and we can respond."
"It has a data domain where we load our data objects onto the tool but doesn't provide data governance capabilities such as cleansing or validating data."
"The solution lacks additional models compared to other tools."
"The tool usability is weak and it also has a high learning curve."
"I cannot recall coming across any missing features."
"The features are limited. I'm hoping in the future the solution will be bigger and include more items. Right now, overall, it needs more."
"The tool's UI should be more user-friendly."
"I would like to see more regular updates released."
"We have a very close relationship with MEGA representatives in Mexico, and we ask them why they don't offer impact analysis. For example, we have a server in the center and provide the client a view of what's in the peripheral area, like one cluster, application, process area, and services. We want to offer our clients that level of visibility with HOPEX."
"Typically, a business process management suite would cover the whole lifecycle, from discovery to optimization and operations. This is running on the process server and providing some kind of low-code environment for developing business solutions. I think the latter part is missing, where SAP Connector comes in. Specifically, the execution of processes is missing, where you would design forms to take orders. This is typically part of some development environment for the process server to run processes from out of the models."
"It could use a better user interface, one that is more efficient."
"The user management functionality in Process Manager is not as user friendly as the one in the Collaboration Hub."
"I think the intuitive handling is an issue which they should be more focused on, especially as we have issues with the glossary. If you want to implement Signavio within procedures in contact with other software, it's quite difficult to integrate and you will have several points where you have to double and triple the work, because you cannot maintain the data centrally. With other solutions, we can integrate it and have only one data transfer, to import and export with other solutions. A glossary is still limiting us."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"It is difficult to quickly digest the vast power of the suite and make use of those capabilities fully."
"I would like to see more predictive analytics. The tool already has all the process maps, but it could offer a more proactive improvement offering. For example, they could put a little bit more machine learning behind it."
"Its reporting feature could have customization options."
MEGA HOPEX is ranked 8th in Business Process Design with 36 reviews while SAP Signavio Process Manager is ranked 6th in Business Process Design with 57 reviews. MEGA HOPEX is rated 7.8, while SAP Signavio Process Manager is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of MEGA HOPEX writes "Easy to use and robust with good features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SAP Signavio Process Manager writes "Has many functionalities and is used to model processes to the former operating model". MEGA HOPEX is most compared with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, LeanIX, ARIS BPA, Visio and iServer, whereas SAP Signavio Process Manager is most compared with Celonis, ARIS BPA, Camunda, Visio and ADONIS. See our MEGA HOPEX vs. SAP Signavio Process Manager report.
See our list of best Business Process Design vendors.
We monitor all Business Process Design reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
