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

Alfabet Enterprise Architecture Management vs MEGA HOPEX 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

Alfabet Enterprise Architec...
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
18th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.3
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
MEGA HOPEX
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
4th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
41
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (7th), GRC (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Enterprise Architecture Management category, the mindshare of Alfabet Enterprise Architecture Management is 2.5%, up from 2.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of MEGA HOPEX is 6.9%, up from 6.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Architecture Management
 

Featured Reviews

AlanJackson - PeerSpot reviewer
Great taxonomy support but raw business processing should be upgraded
Alfabet is not just a technology tool, it's also a business tool. And if a decision's made without the business involved, then Alfabet will not be in a position to deliver anything more than support for enterprise architect drawings and solutions drawings. It has to be the business. If you do that, it works well. If you don't and I've had the experience where they haven't evolved a business, then it just becomes a tech tool that the business doesn't care about. The stigma of having an environment that was so delayed in the maintenance caused lots of finger-pointing within the organization of who was right and who was wrong. It took a considerable period of time to move people past that point to actually look at it as a business tool supported by the technology team. I rate the solution seven out of 10.
JorgeValdez - PeerSpot reviewer
A simple and intuitive tool that provides more features than other tools in the market
The solution can be used to model customer journeys and business processes I use the solution for my customers to model banking products. I also model and define business capability. The biggest value of the product is that we can use it to work in different industries like government,…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The taxonomy support across all the phases is the most advantageous feature."
"The initial setup was straightforward. It takes two to three days to set up the environment. One person was able to handle the implementation."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its customizability, and flexibility in the configuration."
"What I find the most valuable is the process workflow. It is really good."
"The support experience in Latin America is great."
"I have observed MegaHOPEX has capabilities in architecture and other areas."
"The strength of MEGA HOPEX lies in its ability to customize the metamodel."
"The most valuable parts of this solution are the richness of its features and its easy interface."
"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 feature of this solution is the reuse of common enterprise components and entities."
"The dashboard on the homepage makes for an enhanced view at a glance of the various work functions applicable to the user."
 

Cons

"The product is not great at implementing security frameworks across an end-to-end supply chain."
"We would like to see the visualization of assets, as well as artificial intelligence techniques to assist us in making our decisions."
"The user experience, the layout and the different technologies behind the presentations are a bit old. These need to be updated. They should focus on web development. It's simply not supporting the current user experience guidelines."
"MegaHOPEX lacks comprehensive features that a governance tool should have, particularly in data governance. Furthermore, I have doubts about how risk management and other modules are connected to work together efficiently."
"This product is expensive and would be improved by lowering its price."
"We would like to see integration with other products, such as being able to use our workflow with SharePoint and Microsoft Office."
"An area for improvement in MEGA HOPEX is its vast learning curve. The tool is also heavy, so that's a pain point. MEGA HOPEX is also tricky to use if you don't train for many hours."
"Scalability can be a problem sometimes."
"MEGA HOPEX's initial setup could be easier. The newer version is better but they still need to improve the process. The deployment took approximately four to eight hours."
"Standardization is lacking. The Operational Risk Function will be more effective if it at a default level follows established Basel standards for Loss categorization, Risk Assessments, Risk Event categorization, etc."
"The tool needs to have a viewer portal. Currently, we have to use a custom solution to display information, which requires additional effort and tracking of data on a daily basis. Having a built-in viewer dashboard portal would be beneficial."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The product is reasonably priced for the value it offers. There's a good balance between cost and features."
"The tool is relatively expensive."
"MEGA HOPEX's licensing costs are yearly."
"The pricing depends on the number of licenses purchased."
"I've been told that MEGA HOPEX is very expensive, which is why small organizations dismiss the tool. It's complex and costly versus other simpler and cheaper solutions."
"The price of the support depends on the vendors that are reselling this module or the MEGA HOPEX version 5. We are on premium support and are their only partners in the GCC, we have a premium support contract with them. The support we have is not with the client. The client does not bear the cost, it's us who bear the cost."
"The product has a high cost."
"If you want to use additional features, such as the Risk Management capability, then it is a little too expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Architecture Management solutions are best for your needs.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
9%
Insurance Company
8%
Educational Organization
24%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
Any experience with Strategic Project Portfolio Management Solutions?
Hi @Cheryl Joseph ​Looking at the crossover between Project and Portfolio management with EA, then Planview could be a good choice. If looking at Portfolio Management from an EA perspective then Le...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Metro Bank, Credit Suisse
Aetna, Fannie Mae, M&T Bank, Glatfelter Insurance Group, Zions Management Services Company, The College Board, Baxter Credit Union, AXA Financial, Missouri Department of Conservation, New York State OTDA, MEG Energy Corp, Walgreens, Procter & Gamble, Biogen Idec, Gilead Sciences, Organic Valley, Trinity Health, Nissan and Ford
Find out what your peers are saying about Alfabet Enterprise Architecture Management vs. MEGA HOPEX and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.