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

Ardoq 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

Ardoq
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
13th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.7
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
MEGA HOPEX
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
3rd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
42
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (8th), GRC (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Enterprise Architecture Management category, the mindshare of Ardoq is 3.2%, down from 3.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of MEGA HOPEX is 5.9%, down from 6.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Architecture Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
MEGA HOPEX5.9%
Ardoq3.2%
Other90.9%
Enterprise Architecture Management
 

Featured Reviews

Anthony Houghton - PeerSpot reviewer
Data Architect at UK Research and Innovatio
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.
AB
Administrator at a healthcare company with 51-200 employees
Supports process modeling and customization but needs better reporting flexibility and UI improvements
As an administrator, I would improve MEGA HOPEX by adding a WYSIWYG feature for building reports, which would be very helpful. Additionally, I would want reporting customization from the front end web application, not only from the Windows app, which is the customizer. If all changes could be made in the web application, that would be beneficial because every time we need to request access to the server, it takes time in large organizations and involves multiple levels of approvals from cybersecurity and IT security, which can block the project. Regarding dashboards in MEGA HOPEX, they could definitely be better. Having something similar to ARIS would make it easier to build dashboards, providing a what-you-see-is-what-you-get experience, allowing me to drag and drop elements, configure them, and test queries. Moreover, RFQL language is not common, so in MEGA HOPEX, I need to learn RFQL querying. In terms of additional features for MEGA HOPEX, I would appreciate more features for workflows. There are limitations in customizing the email notifications sent during workflows. When creating a workflow, I can configure actions and customize the text, but not the header and footer. Therefore, all emails from the tool come with a MEGA HOPEX header. In large organizations like BPM COE, we want to have our own logo, header, and footer in those emails, but this is not configurable, which I find limiting. I would appreciate easier features to customize workflows and create workflows.

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."
"I find the IT portfolio management very valuable and helpful."
"It is very interactive."
"The dashboard on the homepage makes for an enhanced view at a glance of the various work functions applicable to the user."
"I have observed MegaHOPEX has capabilities in architecture and other areas."
"Every module sets up the same information in a unique repository."
"The most valuable feature for this solution is the automatic updating and propagation of changes across the system."
"What I find the most valuable is the process workflow. It is really good."
"MEGA HOPEX helps me to see the benefits of different solutions in terms of the entire ecosystem I have, by providing different integrations and overseeing the entire system."
 

Cons

"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."
"The training environment wasn't very intuitive, but maybe with more use, it will get better."
"The interface must be improved."
"The tool's UI should be more user-friendly."
"The features are limited. I'm hoping in the future the solution will be bigger and include more items. Right now, overall, it needs more."
"This product is expensive and would be improved by lowering its price."
"There could be continuous AI enhancements for the platform."
"I would like to see more regular updates released."
"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."
"MegaHOPEX lacks comprehensive features that a governance tool should have, particularly in data governance."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We pay for extended support."
"The product is reasonably priced for the value it offers. There's a good balance between cost and features."
"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 tool is relatively expensive."
"The product has a high cost."
"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."
"If you want to use additional features, such as the Risk Management capability, then it is a little too expensive."
"The price of the MEGA HOPEX license could improve, it is expensive. The license key for business process analysis and IT architecture is approximately €10,000. This price is fixed, it's not a subscription or cloud-based version. It is a one-time price."
"MEGA HOPEX's licensing costs are yearly."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Architecture Management solutions are best for your needs.
881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
University
8%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business16
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise24
 

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 MEGA HOPEX?
As an administrator, I would improve MEGA HOPEX by adding a WYSIWYG feature for building reports, which would be very helpful. Additionally, I would want reporting customization from the front end ...
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Schibsted, Government of Malmo, Torvald
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 Ardoq vs. MEGA HOPEX and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.
881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.