Endevor Reviews

We switched from a home grown Librarian based System to Endevor starting in 2009. The product provides good visibility of code changes, and change history. It provides good security options as well.

The biggest benefit we have gained from using this product is the decrease in deployment errors. With our old system, binds and new copies were done manually based on paperwork filled out by the programmer. Now all that is done through Endevor processors.

The biggest irritation I have is the footprint checking process. Once the footprints get out of sync it is hard to tell what the issue is and to fix it.

Support is quite good for this product, although it has become a little more time consuming lately. All calls now appear to go through a general service person first. I have always gotten attention the same day. Not always a fix or an answer that quick, but at least a response from a service tech letting me know they had the problem and were working on it.

The product is still being actively enhanced and there is a strong user community.

We cut implementation errors by around 99%. Less effort is required by developers to set up migrations and the moves are much easier and less prone to problems.

Endevor can be very rigid. When you install and set up your map which controls the way code moves between stages it is important to be sure it is like you are going to want it for the long hall. The map is complicated to change once code is in flight. Each stage is related to the next and this relationship can only be changed when elements are at specific points in the migration cycle.

We have been using this product since 2009.

The biggest issue we had was kick back from staff that didn't like change. We also picked an installer that had a set way of doing the job and so we have an install we don't like. I would strongly suggest that new users take time to understand the product and the different ways it can be set up instead of letting someone just decide for them.

No issues with stability at all.

No issues with scalability.

Customer service is very good.

Technical support is also very good.

We had our own home grown solution that required constant maintenance and patching.

The internal setup is complex and rigid. Get it like you want it the first time. The actual product install is not complex.

We used a contract installer recommended to us by another company, not from CA. This company had a set way that they did the installs and we were not proficient enough with the product to object to some of the things that were done. I strongly suggest that new users take the time to understand the product BEFORE the install.

We did evaluate several products including IBM ClearCase and MKS.

Our company uses ROSCOE for it's primary development. Although ROSCOE and Endevor are owned by the same company, the ROSCOE interface for Endevor is many years out of date.

The valuable features are definitely its customization facilities and its scalability for our organization. Those are the two biggest things from which we can leverage value.

We've got full auditability through the product and that's a huge thing for a financial organization to have in place just from one product. The great thing about the new features is that CA reacts directly to us. We demand new features as customers and they just build it right away. We wanted long names to be put into the product so we could store longer named file definitions and element definitions and that's being released right now. That was from a requirement. In a very short time, CA made a requirement into the real end game.

While CA is able to react to our requests for new features, I think the downside is they don’t use as much long, or medium term strategy anymore.

It is extremely stable software. We don't see it fail. Even with product upgrades it is solid. It has never failed in its history at the bank.

It is completely scalable as a solution. That is important to us. We've probably got one of the biggest implementations of Endevor as a CA customer and it scales completely to our requirements. It provides six terabytes of space. I don't think anybody else providing more space that.

I'm not sure because I didn't select CA as a vendor. I guess price, realistically, has a lot to do with the end solution of what you're actually choosing. Features and stability should be on the list, but realistically, price has to be in there as well.

You need a team of people to support this product. It's not a buy and forget product. You need a team of experienced personnel to support it and they'll gain that experience over time. It's not something you can just go out and buy and implement and have all of the functions and all of the features given to you straight away. You need the professionals behind it to actually do this.

We're using Endevor for application development.

Endevor ensures the source code is deployed to production in an accurate way.

The source integrity is the most valuable feature.

Concurrent development has room for improvement.

The cost of the solution has room for improvement. 

The initial setup can be less complex and has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for thirty-two years.

I give the stability a ten out of ten.

I give the scalability a ten out of ten.

We have 50 people using the solution in our organization.

The initial setup is a bit complex. Two people are required for the deployment.

We have seen a return on investment.

The solution is very expensive.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

We use the product as a source manager and program manager. It helps in controlling the mainframe code and performing data migrations.

Endevor is easy to use.

The product’s implementation process is complicated and restrictive. It is difficult to find file programs and use a different tool for the setup as the compilation process is all locked up, at least in our implementation. We might switch to MySQL for the same reason.

We have been using Endevor for ten years. We use the latest version.

The product is stable, but it is not static as we are developing software.

We have 100 Endevor users in our organization. It is a very scalable product.

I use SCLM as well.

The initial setup process is complex with complicated programs. We have a primary technical executive and two support executives to handle the implementation.

We implement the product with the help of third-party vendors and our in-house staff.

The product is expensive.

I rate Endevor a seven out of ten. I wouldn’t recommend it to others. It could have better pricing and support strategies.

Endevor was brought in because we wanted to stop developers from making production changes in production. It’s enabled us to find a way to make sure the code stays in one area, and to make it secure. Therefore they’re not allowed to do that anymore. It’s a change management tool and that’s the way we use it.

They’ve got little things that I would like to see. It’s more for the administrative side as opposed to the developer who uses Endevor. Since I’m one of the administrators, I'd like to be able to use wildcards a little more often when I’m querying things.

It’s very stable. We don’t have any issues. Whenever we have an issue, we can call them up and say, “Hey, we got a problem.” They’ll fix it right away.

It's very scalable. They’re becoming more and more scalable every day because a lot of people are trying to get rid of the mainframe, not realizing that it’s still just a giant server and it can be used for that. It holds more data, and runs things faster.

Our upgrade plans: the plan is to upgrade. The more and more systems you add to it, and the fact that it handles other things that it never used to do that people wouldn't even think of it doing. It does grow with you and you can keep going with it.

It’s great. We’ve never had a problem. I would recommend that anybody, if you’ve got one of their tools, join one of the user groups because they do have input on the way things are done and any changes you need, they’re willing to listen and to help you out should you have a problem.

It’s straightforward as long as you know the mainframe. If you don’t know the mainframe, they’ve gotten better with the instructions. It’s more like a distributed side. They’ve gotten a lot better, so it’s a lot easier. They’ve got little things that I would like to see. It’s more for the administrative side as opposed to the developer who uses Endevor.

It's important for us that it actually handles the job that we need it to, that it actually covers everything for Endevor. We needed to make sure that we can actually put security in there so not everybody can touch anybody else’s code or anything like that and that it does incorporate the other CA tools that we use going forward.

I’d probably give it a ten because I’ve used it for fifteen years. I love it. The developers now love it, so it’s all good.

I highly recommend for current users to keep it and keep going forward with it because it is very useful, the user group is great. You can get lots of help from everybody out there.

We are using Endevor as a manager for our software to have the promotion between environments.

The most valuable feature of Endevor is customization and ease of use.

The scalability of Endevor could improve.

I have been using Endevor for approximately 20 years.

I have been using the solution without any problems. It is stable.

I rate the stability of Endevor a ten out of ten.

According to our installations, the stability is good.

We have approximately 350 users are using the solution, such as programmers, analysts, and general IT personnel.

I rate the scalability of Endevor an eight out of ten.

I have not used the support from the vendor.

We have not used other solutions similar to Endevor.

The maintenance of the solution is automated.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Endevor a nine out of ten.

• Version tracking
• Footprinting
• ACM
• Admin tools (build SCL)

Time-submitted packages allow for silent, off-hours installs into production.

I find the ISPF interface to be lacking. It seems like you have to navigate to a lot of different screens to work with the same element.

I have used this solution for 20+ years.

We did not have stability issues.

We did not have scalability issues.

On a scale of 1-10, I would say technical support is a 7. First-level of support often comes back with answers that are obviously incorrect or not relevant. Luckily, we don't have many issues.

We had Changeman on one of our mainframes. We migrated to Endevor for the cost savings and also for consistency in our SCM. Endevor was our choice between the two.

I find setup very straightforward. The biggest challenge we had when converting was replicating the compile options. The load module analyzer only looks at link options. It would be nice if it also looked at compile options.

I'm not involved with pricing or licensing.

We looked at Changeman.

I think it's the best SCM I've used and would definitely recommend it.

We use it to migrate our software from the different environments of development and QA, and then QA to production.

It performs pretty well. I like it.

It's good because a lot of time you can keep the history tracking, so I can go back and I can see what the software looked like before and after, what was changed and what was moved.

It's the audit-level tracking. If something has gone wrong I can go back and figure out what happened, who did it.

Being able to go back through and see the history of changes that were migrated, who got migrated. And being able to see data migration has occurred.

Some of the things that we have talked about are trying to move towards Agile, and trying to map back. If I'm migrating once in a code that maybe solves multiple projects, or multiple user stories, or features. Being able to try and do that one-to-many; because right now we're just doing one-to-one.

If it were able to help us map back that code to basically what initially was running, that would help, because sometimes it can be multiples, I can install one release of a product that may have multiple originating.

It seems to be pretty stable.

It seems to be scalable. I don't know that we've tested any limits on it, but it appears to be.

It's been so long that I don't know what the previous solution was, but the switch was because we were trying to get it all consolidated, because we were in multiple places.

It was complex just from a matter of getting everything set up initially and making sure all our parameters were set properly. So it was about us getting everything there the first time. Because when you've got code everywhere, and you're trying to get it in one place, it can sometimes be a challenge just to find it all and get it there.

The most important criteria in selecting a vendor are

• stability of the product
• the company.

We like to hear from other customers that have used it. What were your experiences with it? The software, the vendor not being responsive.

I would rate it a solid eight out of 10, because it is stable, it serves the need that we have now. However, I don't know if it's serving where we are going with the Agile.

It seems to be a solid company, they're good and responsive. It's just a matter of making sure you know where all your software resides today, to get it all there.