We performed a comparison between Avolution ABACUS and erwin Evolve by Quest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Architecture Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"Scalable and stable tool for roadmapping and modeling, with a good dashboard, end-to-end impact analysis, and portfolio management."
"The technical support is very good. They are responsive and the answers they provide are detailed."
"The ease of modeling and the ease of showing interconnectivity and relationships is the most valuable. It is fairly simple and out of the box. It is customizable in many ways. It is a pretty good tool."
"It's more than just an enterprise architecture tool as it has a lot of nice features, e.g. messaging, simulation, etc."
"There are plenty of features available such as the ability to test applications for issues and a user-friendly dashboard."
"The product is easy to use and well-structured for the integrations we need it to make."
"There are a lot of different features, but the business/decision-maker feature, visibility, and dashboards are most valuable."
"I really liked that it mapped out processes and was able to attach the data model to the appropriate process. You could map out the process, then when you got down to a specific couple of data elements, you could attach the table in the database that supported that process. You could connect it with erwin Data Modeler for that."
"Evolve is like a tank. You can do whatever you want with the solution, but you need to customize it. I think that it's not very aligned with the framework for enterprise architecture. MEGA is focused on these enterprise architectures, but it's only for that. With Evolve, you can do everything you want with professional services."
"You can use different kinds of diagrams to represent the architecture setting."
"Evolve's reverse engineering ability is quite useful."
"One of the most valuable features is the website that sits on top of the database. There's a database of objects and how they are related, and you can make views and diagrams and visual elements out of that information on the website. The website is the part that is called Evolve and we use the Evolve Designer and publish the website out to our employees. They can click around and navigate and search, etc."
"I use reference models, which are taxonomies, in my EA work. It is a reference model/taxonomy of things with capabilities, sub capabilities, and sub-sub capabilities, so you're working it down. I haven't yet found a simple way to implement that in Abacus. It could be that it is there, but I don't know how to do it."
"Their local presence in the Middle East could be scaled more, particularly in customer service. It would be good if they'd also have mobile dashboards for executive management out of the box."
"It doesn't have the simulation capability, which would be helpful in doing some business process analysis and improvements."
"The company needs to update the UML version they are using for the product as it is quite old."
"In the future, there could be improvements in integration and enhancements."
"They should take more initiative to implement things that competing products have already come out with."
"Having more control over page size is lacking in this product. Print utilization also needs to be improved."
"If it had fewer features to model all kinds of architecture, it would be less complicated."
"It could have had a more streamlined navigation. It seemed that when you went to the explorer panel, there were just so many different ways of doing the work that I could not remember, "How did I do this? How did I get to that point in that model to get back to it?" If I wanted to build a new one, where do I start? It just seemed like there was such a smorgasbord of ways of doing it that it was just overwhelming."
"What they need to do is to consolidate more of their products. For example, I was just looking and I couldn't figure out what erwin DT is. It's on the website but it would help if they could put information together and make it more clear as to what products they have and how they work with other things."
"Evolve is primarily focused on the entity's licenses diagrams, but it would be nice if erwin could integrate case development, so that it shows the ER diagram plus certain inputs on the use cases and how the data is used. That deviates somewhat from the overall scope, so maybe they could call it a different product."
"They need to develop Evolve's user experience. For example, MEGA has a useful client view that helps with impact analysis. MEGA provides information about the processes, services, infrastructure, and portfolio of applications in one central view. It lets you see the periphery and relationships among components. This view is impressive, and Evolve doesn't have it."
Avolution ABACUS is ranked 5th in Architecture Management with 6 reviews while erwin Evolve by Quest is ranked 7th in Architecture Management with 5 reviews. Avolution ABACUS is rated 8.0, while erwin Evolve by Quest is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Avolution ABACUS writes "Offers comprehensive product features; setup is straightforward and self configuring". On the other hand, the top reviewer of erwin Evolve by Quest writes "Enables us to present data and objects visually, in diagrams, and to make them available via the web. Also enableds web-based editing of data". Avolution ABACUS is most compared with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, LeanIX, MEGA HOPEX, BiZZdesign HoriZZon and SAP PowerDesigner, whereas erwin Evolve by Quest is most compared with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, IDERA ER/Studio, SAP PowerDesigner, erwin Data Modeler by Quest and IBM Rational System Architect. See our Avolution ABACUS vs. erwin Evolve by Quest report.
See our list of best Architecture Management vendors.
We monitor all 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.
