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

Ardoq vs Avolution ABACUS comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 2, 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

Ardoq
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
11th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.7
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Avolution ABACUS
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
9th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Enterprise Architecture Management category, the mindshare of Ardoq is 3.4%, up from 3.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Avolution ABACUS is 3.6%, down from 4.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Architecture Management
 

Featured Reviews

Anthony Houghton - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides stable performance and scalability but not intuitive for data modeling
Overall, I would rate it around six out of ten. The training environment wasn't very intuitive, but maybe with more use, it will get better. We need to learn to navigate it. So, there is a potential learning curve in this tool. I use it once in a blue moon, and not very frequently because I have not found it very intuitive.
JoseCamacho - PeerSpot reviewer
Supports evaluating architecture through corporate objectives
I conducted an evaluation of enterprise architecture at the European Court in Luxembourg, reviewing and analyzing existing implementations to identify potential improvements and providing recommendations I conduct evaluations to identify potential improvements and make recommendations, forming a…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is a stable solution."
"Snapshots are the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature is that it has a customizable meta-model, which is key."
"It's more than just an enterprise architecture tool as it has a lot of nice features, e.g. messaging, simulation, etc."
"If you face new challenges or issues then you can dynamically customize according to the business needs."
"It is a very stable solution...The initial setup of Avolution ABACUS is very easy."
"You can design using a diagram tool installed on your desktop, a key difference from other vendors."
"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."
"Avolution ABACUS allows for flexible enterprise architecture analysis."
"The technical support is very good. They are responsive and the answers they provide are detailed."
 

Cons

"The training environment wasn't very intuitive, but maybe with more use, it will get better."
"Scalability as a standalone system is good, given the information that has been described inside Ardoq. But not the scalability as a third-party system or with integration with other systems. Because in this direction, the scalability is about zero for Ardoq."
"It is vastly scalable but you can't run it on a Mac or Linux so it has limitations."
"The company needs to update the UML version they are using for the product as it is quite old."
"The most valuable features are the catalog and the diagram."
"It doesn't have the simulation capability, which would be helpful in doing some business process analysis and improvements."
"In the future, there could be improvements in integration and enhancements."
"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."
"While Avolution ABACUS is flexible, it can be complex to work with as it requires knowledge of specific configurations to customize the product."
"If they want to expand in the European market then they are going to have to improve their technical support."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We pay for extended support."
"There is a subscription for this solution. We are on an annual subscription because you sometimes receive special offers the longer you subscribe."
"It is competitive. It is not chump change. I am just using the studio version. I am not using the full enterprise version, which would probably cost me three times more for single-use, but it gives a lot more capability and analysis. It is server-based as well, and it is reasonably priced compared to a lot of the other tools. There are other tools that have other sorts of capabilities, but in order to use them, you'd really have to have like 50 users for the price to become justifiable."
"This solution is expensive for some people's budgets and they need to offer a Lite version at a cheaper price"
"The pricing is quite good compared to the competition and it is part of the reason we chose the product."
"I'm paying on a yearly basis. I don't know whether it's a highly expensive tool or not. I'm getting a single version of it, and I don't have the enterprise part on it because I don't need the server component, and I don't need a web browser component. My estimate would be that it's a very reasonably priced tool given that you don't need to have licenses with everyone in order to get the information and the decision support capabilities out of the tool. You use the enterprise edition on top of the studio, which is the heart of the tool. I am not aware of any additional costs."
"To get a fairly extensive license for Enterprise Architects from Spark is approximately US $400.00, maybe less, but with Avolution Abacus it was approximately US $2000.00 per year, and that includes maintenance with the Abacus tool."
"My company makes annual payments toward the licensing costs of the solution. Considering the product's capabilities, its prices are very reasonable."
"The solution's pricing is not an issue."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Architecture Management solutions are best for your needs.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Government
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Insurance Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Government
15%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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...
What needs improvement with Ardoq?
It doesn't seem good for data modeling. So, I would like to see some features related to that in future releases.
What do you like most about Avolution ABACUS?
The tool's implementation is straightforward as everything is readily available. For instance, setting up a portal is seamless, allowing easy publishing and access to data. However, integrating wit...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Avolution ABACUS?
It's pricey compared to Essential, Deltek, or Essential Cloud. However, its diagramming capabilities and metamodel design make it worth it. But it's not for large user bases. It has modules for app...
What needs improvement with Avolution ABACUS?
While Avolution ABACUS is flexible, it can be complex to work with as it requires knowledge of specific configurations to customize the product. It would be beneficial to have seminars or other met...
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Schibsted, Government of Malmo, Torvald
Barclays
Find out what your peers are saying about Ardoq vs. Avolution ABACUS and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.