We performed a comparison between Atoll Technologies System Architecture Management Utility and LeanIX based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about LeanIX, Sparx Systems, erwin by Quest and others in Enterprise Architecture Management."The solution is stable. We haven't had any serious technical issues."
More Atoll Technologies System Architecture Management Utility Pros →
"One of the product's most valuable features is its ability to configure hardware devices."
"LeanIX has a great application information architecture."
"LeanIX has good usability and stability. This SaaS is intuitive, easy to use, and comes with a nice reporting feature."
"The solution provides a single window view of business, application, data, and technology views of the IT ecosystem."
"The ability to import data and generate reports from it. That's where its power lies."
"The usability is very high. It almost looks like a Facebook for Enterprise architecture, it's pretty nice. It's HTML5 based. The repository is very easy. It has 10 different ways of sorting the objects you have in your architecture repository. Maintaining new data or to add data to your repository is very easy."
"I like the tool’s integration and maps."
"The most valuable feature would be application portfolio management, which is where they came from, but over time, they have got artificial intelligence. They built up a very good repository. If I identify a system by name, from historical information, oftentimes, they can tell me that this is deployed with this number of CPUs and they can give me a really good profile of the application for me to put it into a change management database with very little effort."
"The user interface needs improvement. The solution needs to add a few features to improve the overall user experience. Security needs to be strengthened as well."
More Atoll Technologies System Architecture Management Utility Cons →
"The initial setup has room for improvement."
"Report generation could be more detailed. There are some shortcomings when creating reports. We can't create tag-based reports or go beyond basic technical reports."
"Another area for improvement is that when you're starting to look into more advanced information, using the solution's APIs and its customizations, documentation for that specific aspect is not very good. There is not too much support built into the offering for that aspect, for a developer."
"The whole integration architecture view of interfaces/data exchange could be improved."
"It's hard to predict the pricing of the system."
"The solution’s API integration needs to improve. I would like to see a digital screen watch feature also in the solution."
"Not a ten because you always have that gap between complexity and easy to use. And the more complex the tool becomes, the more difficult it is to get the usability."
"The modeling could be improved."
Earn 20 points
Atoll Technologies System Architecture Management Utility is ranked 31st in Enterprise Architecture Management while LeanIX is ranked 1st in Enterprise Architecture Management with 16 reviews. Atoll Technologies System Architecture Management Utility is rated 8.0, while LeanIX is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Atoll Technologies System Architecture Management Utility writes "A stable scalable solution with mid-range price points". On the other hand, the top reviewer of LeanIX writes "Streamlines the process of identifying apps nearing end-of-life or requiring retirement and facilitates informed decisions about app retention". Atoll Technologies System Architecture Management Utility is most compared with , whereas LeanIX is most compared with ServiceNow, Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, MEGA HOPEX, ADOIT and iServer.
See our list of best Enterprise Architecture Management 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.