We performed a comparison between MEGA HOPEX and Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Architecture Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Its availability is very good."
"The support experience in Latin America is great."
"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 solution itself was easy to use."
"The most valuable feature for this solution is the automatic updating and propagation of changes across the system."
"HOPEX has a panel that offers various views. I think that is very good. MEGA has an app for integrating with a lot of apps. We help our clients integrate HOPEX with a different product like Apple Gateway, for example. I've been with the company for 15 years, and we connect with everything. Our clientele includes almost all of the banks in Mexico."
"Customer support is fantastic. They are very helpful whenever we get on the line with the support team."
"We use the portfolio management feature heavily."
"It's easy to search within the solution."
"It is a useful tool for modeling and testing automated processes."
"It is a handy tool for visual modeling that provides opportunities for analysis, design, and support of models using ArchiMate, UML."
"The features I find most valuable is the ability to create a document and then put it into a OneCare artifact."
"Customizable and tailored to the environment. Several template frameworks are provided."
"Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect was easy to set up and it took just twenty minutes."
"Modeling is a part of my work, and it has a lot of standard modeling languages. It is quite wide, and a lot is possible in it. We are not programming it ourselves, but if you are into programming and developing software yourself, you can go further and do a lot with Sparx. You can work from the framework and go into the details. With this solution, you get a lot of value at a low cost. It is also quite intuitive in terms of use. I like the use of it."
"The system provides powerful tools for obtaining reports and documentation."
"MEGA HOPEX can improve process simulation in the BPA module. If the solution was better we would not have to use another solution for this purpose. Simulating scenarios in the future for the to-be processes is in demand. If we can have the simulation engine built inside MEGA HOPEX, we would not have to purchase another license or solution to integrate them with each other. This would be a great improvement."
"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 product must improve integration with other tools."
"Lacking more out of the box integrations."
"The interface must be improved."
"The initial setup is a little complex."
"In my experience, I've encountered difficulties with consuming custom packages in MEGA HOPEX, which leads to redundant work when deploying them to production. This is an area where improvement is needed. While version six offers better UI and UX, resolving this issue should be a priority. I believe it's important to fully explore MEGA HOPEX's capabilities before suggesting new ones."
"It takes a long time to learn how to use HOPEX. It's hard to work with it because the user interface is bad. For example, if you want to build a complex system diagram, you need a lot of knowledge to do this correctly and make it readable. In MEGA, you need to create a report and it takes a long time to publish it. The publishing is offline. With RDoC, everything is online."
"When many users are accessing the system at the same time, Sparx slows down. It can't easily support a large team."
"When collaborating with other people, it needs to be more user-friendly."
"The reporting needs improvement."
"This solution has some limitations from a business perspective."
"Its best features are not intuitive or easy to learn. Most companies I have worked with, when I see what they are doing with it , are not using more than 5% of what they could and should be doing with it."
"The Portfolio Management features can be added in the next release. As it helps you to manage more portfolio of projects and architectures of cost projects on a portfolio level. This would be an important feature in the next release."
"In general, we now have a problem with Sparx Enterprise Architect because many analysts think it's too complicated to use in a giant environment."
"The presentation graphics need to be improved in future builds."
More Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect Pricing and Cost Advice →
MEGA HOPEX is ranked 4th in Enterprise Architecture Management with 36 reviews while Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Architecture Management with 97 reviews. MEGA HOPEX is rated 7.8, while Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of MEGA HOPEX writes "Easy to use and robust with good features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect writes "Easy to set up and had no issues with stability, but it's not a very friendly tool, and its database modeling and entity-relationship modeling functions need improvement". MEGA HOPEX is most compared with LeanIX, ARIS BPA, Visio, Avolution ABACUS and SAP Signavio Process Manager, whereas Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is most compared with Visual Paradigm, Visio, No Magic MagicDraw, Lucidchart and IBM Rational System Architect. See our MEGA HOPEX vs. Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect report.
See our list of best Enterprise Architecture Management vendors and best Business Process Design vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Architecture Management 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.