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

MEGA HOPEX vs erwin Evolve comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 23, 2025

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

erwin Evolve
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
14th
Ranking in Business Process Design
21st
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
MEGA HOPEX
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
3rd
Ranking in Business Process Design
8th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
42
Ranking in other categories
GRC (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Enterprise Architecture Management category, the mindshare of erwin Evolve is 3.3%, up from 2.9% 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%
erwin Evolve3.3%
Other90.8%
Enterprise Architecture Management
 

Featured Reviews

Asish Sahu - PeerSpot reviewer
SPM at Infosys
The reverse engineering capabilities are quite useful.
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.
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

"We can efficiently deploy business models into the databases and generate SQL scripts."
"Evolve's reverse engineering ability is quite useful."
"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."
"Workgroup Repository collection of data models allows research across models without worry about platform incompatibilities and provides easy KPIs about corporate data assets."
"I can send images in the PDF form, along with the relationships and the associations that are a very important part of what we do. It can show what is affected and what is impacted by a certain change in one area of the system architecture or enterprise architecture. I can very quickly draw those issues and topics to the fore."
"I have not seen capabilities for web-sharing and interaction with the architecture from any other supplier. It's a great capability..."
"You can use different kinds of diagrams to represent the architecture setting."
"Forward and reverse engineering were valuable features."
"The most valuable features of MEGA HOPEX are the seamless VPA module and the good user experience. There are built-in connections that provide integration with other platforms, such as ServiceNow. There is a lot of customization available allowing a lot of freedom. The solution is updated frequently adding new features. For example, the feature GraphQL can be integrated into other solutions, such as ManageEngine for ITSM solutions. You are able to use GraphQL to connect APIs and query the APIs."
"What I find the most valuable is the process workflow. It is really good."
"We have many use cases for this solution but the feature I have found most valuable is the IT Portfolio Management module."
"It is very interactive."
"The most valuable feature is that the software controls everything from a single management window."
"The most valuable feature is the completeness of HOPEX's meta-model. It's a strong meta-model that's rigid but comprehensive. It's a logical fit for our understanding of how we want things modeled in our database."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the reuse of common enterprise components and entities."
"MEGA HOPEX has extensive modeling capabilities and can be modeled in different ways."
 

Cons

"With the Excel importing, the "up to date" part is the challenge. If we had a real-time integration, we could keep things up to date for whatever kinds of change points we had. With Excel, it is more that you have to export from one system then import it to another, so it's better for data that doesn't change that often."
"I would like to see an improvement in the output of the solution."
"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."
"Business process modelling could be improved."
"The solution's integration capabilities with other tools in our system has not been all that well done. We have people who use ARIS, who use System Architect and, of course, Visio. erwin has very limited ways to import and export from those kinds of tools. It's not a very easy thing to do."
"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."
"I feel that the UML drawing capability needs to be improved."
"Lacking more out of the box integrations."
"The initial setup is a little complex."
"The product must improve integration with other tools."
"I cannot recall coming across any missing features."
"It would be great if this solution could integrate with other tools such as ITSM (ServiceNow) or CMDB."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"To be honest, it is not the best support that I have seen in my career."
"We would like to see integration with other products, such as being able to use our workflow with SharePoint and Microsoft Office."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Yearly, our cost is €100,000."
"I estimate that we pay between $40,000 and $50,000 a year for the solution, not including the upfront costs to buy things the first time."
"On a yearly basis, our licensing costs are 50,000 euro. There are no additional costs because we are on a SaaS model."
"I think erwin is quite expensive. I have difficulty selling the portal, in fact."
"The cost is something like $15,000, per license. But I haven't looked at those numbers in three years. It was over $100,000 to initially set everything up and get it all configured."
"The licensing enables you to differentiate between people who edit the content and the people who consume it. We are able to keep the licensing costs down by keeping the "contributor" licenses to a minimum, and we then just roll out the content in a read-only version for the rest of our users."
"Unless you are a one person shop – always go with the Workgroup edition and Concurrent licensing."
"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."
"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."
"The tool is relatively expensive."
"The product is reasonably priced for the value it offers. There's a good balance between cost and features."
"It is very expensive."
"The pricing depends on the number of licenses purchased."
"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."
"If you want to use additional features, such as the Risk Management capability, then it is a little too expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Architecture Management solutions are best for your needs.
881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Performing Arts
10%
Government
7%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise12
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business16
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise24
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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...
 

Also Known As

erwin EA, erwin Business Process, erwin Enterprise Architecture
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

AT&T, Bank of America, Chevron, Duke University, ESPN, Fidelity, GE, JP Morgan Chase, KPMG, McGraw Hill, NASA, Pfizer, Royal Bank of Scotland, Teradata, Union Pacific, Vodafone, Wells Fargo.
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 MEGA HOPEX vs. erwin Evolve and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.
881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.