"It's more than just an enterprise architecture tool as it has a lot of nice features, e.g. messaging, simulation, etc."
"The technical support is very good. They are responsive and the answers they provide are detailed."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is that it has a customizable meta-model, which is key."
"There are plenty of features available such as the ability to test applications for issues and a user-friendly dashboard."
"There are a lot of different features, but the business/decision-maker feature, visibility, and dashboards are most valuable."
"The product is easy to use and well-structured for the integrations we need it to make."
"It's a stable and scalable solution. I like that it's similar to Rational Rose."
"Its ease of use and the breadth of the toolkit are most valuable. It has an incredible repository of artifacts to work with, and they're all cross-referenced. It works with a whole bunch of different standards. It works with BPMN, which is Business Process Modeling Notation, and it also works with something called TOGAF, which is the Open Group Architecture Foundation. There are different layers when you're dealing with architecture. There is the user interface, application, data, data servers, and all that kind of stuff. You have the infrastructure, hardware, and software layers, and then you have the application and business capability layers. You can model a business process and decompose it into all of the applications, data, and hardware to support it."
"It is an EA tool that is approved by Open Group. It is in the tool register of Open Group."
"For the most part, we find that it is remarkable how inexpensive it is."
"The profiles and ready-made templates are an extremely helpful feature. This is one of the biggest features that I find very useful in Sparx."
"The company has become more efficient and reduced its budget."
"Scalability is not a problem. You can always increase the footprint of what the thing can do because it's so powerful."
"It is a useful tool for modeling and testing automated processes."
"The company needs to update the UML version they are using for the product as it is quite old."
"I use reference models, which are taxonomies, in my EA work. It is a reference model/taxonomy of things with capabilities, sub capabilities, and sub-sub capabilities, so you're working it down. I haven't yet found a simple way to implement that in Abacus. It could be that it is there, but I don't know how to do it."
"Having more control over page size is lacking in this product. Print utilization also needs to be improved."
"They should take more initiative to implement things that competing products have already come out with."
"In the future, there could be improvements in integration and enhancements."
"The reporting could be easier to configure."
"It doesn't have the simulation capability, which would be helpful in doing some business process analysis and improvements."
"For data modeling, it is not very mature when comparing with other data modeling tools."
"The UI could be improved and made a little bit more presentable."
"Not visually appealing."
"The areas of improvement should be focused on utility service such as producing better graphics, perhaps having a wider image library set and producing better models for working directly with customers."
"The fact that you can do a lot yourself is a plus point, but it also becomes a challenge because you need an understanding of the programming languages to get things to work. It becomes challenging for those who are not very good at programming. You have standard reports, but if you want to make your own reports, you have to program it. Similarly, if you want validations rules, you have to take care of them yourself."
"Their technical support is not good in India. I wrote to them because I had a question, but I never got an answer. So, I just left it behind."
"When collaborating with other people, it needs to be more user-friendly."
"From a practical point of view, we need speed and reliability for creating a model and doing some really meaningful tasks such as application landscape, refactoring, etc. These are two primary criteria. Sometimes, when you import something, it creates the object duplicates, or it allows you to do something that you're not supposed to do. For example, validation is missing. This could be frustrating because when you work at a high speed, you need to come back and start fixing things that the tool allowed you to go with, which is not quite good. So, there should probably be some internal mechanisms to advise you about what you're doing and what is probably not the best idea."
More Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect Pricing and Cost Advice →
Avolution ABACUS is ranked 9th in Architecture Management with 6 reviews while Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is ranked 1st in Architecture Management with 35 reviews. Avolution ABACUS is rated 8.2, while Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Avolution ABACUS writes "Offers comprehensive product features; setup is straightforward and self configuring". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect writes "Great pricing with an easy initial setup and a comprehensive toolkit". Avolution ABACUS is most compared with LeanIX, BiZZdesign HoriZZon, MEGA HOPEX, iServer and erwin Data Modeler (DM), whereas Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is most compared with Visual Paradigm, No Magic MagicDraw, Visio, ARIS BPA and erwin Evolve. See our Avolution ABACUS vs. Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect report.
See our list of best Architecture Management vendors.
We monitor all Architecture Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
