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

IDERA ER/Studio vs QualiWare X 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

IDERA ER/Studio
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
6th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
38
Ranking in other categories
Database Development and Management (8th)
QualiWare X
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
20th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Management (BPM) (57th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2025, in the Enterprise Architecture Management category, the mindshare of IDERA ER/Studio is 3.7%, down from 4.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of QualiWare X is 1.3%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Architecture Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
IDERA ER/Studio3.7%
QualiWare X1.3%
Other95.0%
Enterprise Architecture Management
 

Featured Reviews

Aaron Cutshall - PeerSpot reviewer
Used for data modeling and has a scripting language to write your own scripts
The solution has streamlined our data modeling processes quite a bit. It's a central focus in our data modeling and data cataloging efforts. The tool's reverse engineering capability to bring in existing database structures and create models from them has benefitted our data architecture needs. With the tool's data dictionary capability, we're able to maintain consistency in our models, name use, and actual data domains. The solution's reverse engineering helps with understanding legacy databases. In fact, I've been asked to reverse-engineer several more legacy databases so that we can have them modeled and cataloged. The solution is deployed on the cloud server, but it’s only within our network. The solution has a lot of capabilities. I like the fact that it has a scripting language that allows you to automate and write your own scripts. I think that's been a big bonus for us. I highly recommend the solution because of its capability for logical models, where you can put your business definitions and logic. While less expensive, some other tools can't do that. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.
Gavin Bérubé - PeerSpot reviewer
Works as a reference for architecture but not very intuitive
We use the solution as a reference for architecture so that we can connect business data applications. The tool helps us to know how these applications should be built. We use it mainly as reference material.  I like the solution's traceability.  The solution is not easy and intuitive to use. I…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We found a lot of duplication, a lot of non-conformity in the way our databases were designed. By identifying these situations, we're able to go back in and try to create a more standardized solution."
"I would 100% recommend the product."
"ER/Studio is excellent for large teams; it scales well to teams of over one hundred plus people."
"Modeling with Data Architect: We can quickly reverse-engineer a database from an existing database or create a model from scratch."
"The interface is really simple to use and it allows me to pick and choose which tables I want to reverse engineer."
"This application does a lot of things, as do competitor products, but the main reason to go with this product was the ability to create many automations, where we can improve our work and our process."
"It's easy to model and has a user-friendly interface. I like the team portal because, once we upload, the entire team can see the model."
"It does the job."
"I like the solution's traceability."
 

Cons

"The only thing I had an issue with was licensing, and the support was very good."
"The solution's reporting could be improved because the report writer is terrible."
"We did have a big issue when we upgraded to the 2016 version. The Team Server portion never did quite install correctly, and/or the database was corrupted, and we never figured it out."
"There was no specific mention of areas needing improvement."
"I cannot evaluate any areas for improvement at this time."
"When building the relationships there should be a little more flexibility."
"when there are some links to the external databases, if this database is not structured it is not uploaded. It gives me errors and I cannot see the view that was created on this structure and I cannot change those views, even manually. It skips the views. I have to ignore those views. I cannot re-upload them because it gives me an error."
"Whenever there is a new version, there are a lot of release notes on the technical side of it, but I would like to be told why are we doing the upgrade... What I would like to really see is how this benefits us from the business point of view. What are the real benefits that the user gets? I want some kind of way white paper. The release notes describe the technical enhancements but, from the layman's point of view, if someone asks me what are the business benefits of this upgrade, I don't have any documentation to explain it to the business."
"The solution is not easy and intuitive to use. I would also like the software to have a reference metamodel that can guide the modeling."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"As an individual user, the renewal is a little costly."
"It is priced fairly. It's around the same as erwin and other competitors' costs."
"The process of licensing could be much simpler, from our experience."
"Pricing is expensive and on the higher-end."
"The setup cost may have been around $1500 to $2000."
"The solution’s pricing is high."
"The price of this product is okay."
"I use the product's trial version."
"I would rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten since it's pretty expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Architecture Management solutions are best for your needs.
873,085 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Energy/Utilities Company
12%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
8%
Government
33%
Computer Software Company
11%
Media Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise25
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IDERA ER Studio?
In terms of pricing, ER/Studio is slightly more expensive compared to Erwin, by about five to ten percent.
What is your primary use case for IDERA ER Studio?
I have been working with data modeling tools. Personally, I have been working with Erwin for many years now. ER/Studio is something I am currently trying to evaluate for acquiring it for our organi...
What advice do you have for others considering IDERA ER Studio?
I would strongly recommend ER/Studio for large teams. Erwin is a very stable product, but for smaller teams, it's okay. If I had to rate ER/Studio, I would give it nine out of ten because the absen...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

IDERA ER Studio, ER/Studio, ER/Studio Enterprise Team Edition
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Newmont Mining, Entrust, Accolade, TalkTalk, Catalina, Protective Life, NTT Data, dir systèmes, Microsoft; American Express, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Coriant, Fedex, GlaxoSmithKline, PepsiCo, Prudential, Wells Fargo
Emiliambiente, OLI, Galletti, Hiref, Bugatti, Argelli, Culligan Italiana, Sal, Stefal Cablaggi, BrainBee Automotive, Varvel, Campagnola, Favini, G.F., Gruppo ROLD
Find out what your peers are saying about IDERA ER/Studio vs. QualiWare X and other solutions. Updated: November 2025.
873,085 professionals have used our research since 2012.