No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Aurea CX Process vs No Magic MagicDraw comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Aurea CX Process
Ranking in Business Process Design
26th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Management (BPM) (48th)
No Magic MagicDraw
Ranking in Business Process Design
14th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Business Process Design category, the mindshare of Aurea CX Process is 1.2%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of No Magic MagicDraw is 2.6%, down from 3.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Design Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
No Magic MagicDraw2.6%
Aurea CX Process1.2%
Other96.2%
Business Process Design
 

Featured Reviews

HC
Savvion (BPM) J2EE Developer at a tech vendor with 51-200 employees
Facilitates development flexibility and easy customization
Flexibility of development. Developer can use various JavaScript APIs for development. Most (or all) of the components are plug and play. Customization is easily achievable most of the time As mentioned above, it is more flexible than other products available in the market. Performance. More…
reviewer2080611 - PeerSpot reviewer
System Engineer at a consultancy with 51-200 employees
Ease of use and real-time collaboration empower effective teamwork and streamlined development
For CAMEO, it's not only the ease of use, it's versatility, its communicability, but Rhapsody is the worst tool I've ever used. It is very difficult, not user-friendly, and very expensive. It works only with its IBM counterparts. SPARX Enterprise Architecture is very easy to use, but it's limited. It gives you an idea of how your model is developing, so this feature helps maintain integrity or correctness of system models. It's really a good feature to have. You've got to have the simulation toolkit installed to be able to do that, and that works really well. The MagicDraw or CAMEO system is good on its own, but it should be integrated and should come out of the box with the simulation toolkit because there are some things you can't do without it, making it very difficult to have to look for another license to be able to do that. I would prefer that it come with the simulation toolkit.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Flexibility of development; the developer can use various JavaScript APIs for development and most or all of the components are plug and play, so customization is easily achievable most of the time."
"The most valuable feature is the amount of flexibility that one has to model, which is great for an individual."
"I like the traceability feature. Whoever is working with the product would be sure of the things that could be affected if they decided to affect one of the other companies. For example, let's say that an engineer starts a new project optimization problem by adjusting the thickness of metal sheets. However, the engineers only see a reduced number of affections, but when we use the requirement traceability, they can see the whole picture. That's the main aspect that we were promoting with this tool."
"We are getting away from the old ways of writing a lot of papers and requirements documents, architecture documents, technical solution documents, interface documents - those days are gone."
"The most valuable feature is the amount of flexibility that one has to model, which is great for an individual."
"The beauty of MagicDraw is that it has a simulation part, so you can simulate your model to validate it. The simulation allows you to bring in code off of an external code that you can write to set up the simulation and execute the code."
"It is very user-friendly, and the customer service is really good."
"My advice to anybody who is designing complex projects, like defense projects or space projects, is that they have to use this program or one like it."
"The MBSE capability of MagicDraw is higher than the other competitors."
 

Cons

"Yes, the servers are not as efficient as required."
"When I am working with my Mac and I right-click to copy and paste, it doesn't work."
"For the next releases, I would like to have them import requirements from other sources. They could make it very easy to do that because there are a lot requirements management tools like DOORS, D-O-O-R-S, Dynamic Object Oriented Management. A lot of folks use DOORS to create a requirement. For those requirements you allocate them to a component in the architecture and a verification method for that requirement. It would be good if we could import those into MagicDraw as components so you don't have to manually do these things."
"It's very focused on specific modern languages and it doesn't do necessarily general systems software engineering with diagrams. They should expand the diagram types for the languages."
"The UI UX of the tool is not really user-friendly and needs to be completely reformed."
"There could be a trial version for students."
"The price of the solution could be reduced."
"I would like to see the ability to deploy live business process models and capture real-time data (without the need for another product tool) so you don't have to be dependent on other products for this functionality."
"They don't really support code engineering, and that's why we have to move to Enterprise Architect."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"In addition to the initial cost, you have to pay annually for support in order to get the upgrades."
"The licensing is on a yearly basis, and it's expensive."
"I rate the pricing a ten out of ten. It is an expensive product compared to software for model-based system engineering."
"I would say licensing would be anywhere from $3,500 to $6,500 per person or per seat (it's a per seat style license)."
"The price of No Magic MagicDraw could improve. The price of the solution is too expensive for smaller-sized companies. There should be a better pricing model."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Design solutions are best for your needs.
886,077 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Manufacturing Company
23%
Government
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise7
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for No Magic MagicDraw?
Maybe the price is a little bit high for a small company to acquire this tool. However, they offer trial versions and trial licenses for members of INCOSE.
What needs improvement with No Magic MagicDraw?
For CAMEO, it's not only the ease of use, it's versatility, its communicability, but Rhapsody is the worst tool I've ever used. It is very difficult, not user-friendly, and very expensive. It works...
What is your primary use case for No Magic MagicDraw?
I deal with DOD lifecycle acquisition sorts of things as some of the main use cases currently, and I expect to continue using it for more than 25 years.
 

Also Known As

CX Process Enterprise, Savvion BusinessManager, Savvion Process Modeler
MagicDraw
 

Overview

Information not available
 

Sample Customers

Air France-KLM, Proximus, Barratt Developments, Heathrow, HomeServe, Paypal, Freedom Mortgage
Northrop Grumman, Labcorp, Deposco, ClearView Training, IT Services Promotion Agency, Intelligent Chaos, Metalithic Systems Inc., Sodifrance
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Bizagi, Microsoft and others in Business Process Design. Updated: March 2026.
886,077 professionals have used our research since 2012.