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

BIC Platform vs No Magic MagicDraw 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

BIC Platform
Ranking in Business Process Design
18th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Management (BPM) (29th)
No Magic MagicDraw
Ranking in Business Process Design
14th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Business Process Design category, the mindshare of BIC Platform is 1.7%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of No Magic MagicDraw is 3.0%, down from 3.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Design
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2229045 - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides good stability, but they should add a feature for enterprise architecture
We use BIC Platform for process design and workflow features The product is easy to use, and it has different roles. It is an online platform, so many users can simultaneously use it according to their assigned roles. The product’s most valuable feature is roles. So, we can assign different…
DiegoRangel - PeerSpot reviewer
Enhanced team communication and design exploration with integrated simulation tools
I was using No Magic MagicDraw to model operations, such as using different kinds of operations with ships or crafts and other systems No Magic MagicDraw facilitated great communication within the team and allowed for the exploration of different designs and architectures, which was beneficial…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The central dictionary is a valuable feature."
"While this is a new product it has a mature feel from being built by a company with many years in the business."
"The product is easy to use."
"This is low-cost and very user friendly. A variety of models are available depending on the needs of the customer."
"The most valuable features are the visibility, standard compliance, and interface."
"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."
"Offers good standards compliance and is user-friendly."
"The technical support is very good."
"I think one of the key things is the plugins for integration with requirements management tools like Doors"
"I would rate MagicDraw a nine out of ten because of the price. Enterprise Architect has a lot of bugs and MagicDraw is a lot more accurate and flexible. It's a level better."
"The most valuable feature of No Magic MagicDraw is the simulation capabilities and interface."
"It is pretty easy to use. It is pretty versatile."
 

Cons

"The solution could improve its connectivity to other systems."
"As the product is very new, some minor features are still missing, but everything is there to handle day-to-day process modeling."
"The product needs improvement regarding the confidentiality of the domain information for the key administrator."
"There's an issue with the current manual that they're working on."
"The UI UX of the tool is not really user-friendly and needs to be completely reformed."
"One potential area for improvement is the recommendation feature. At times, we face challenges in locating specific features, and we have to reach out for assistance in finding the information we need."
"There could be a trial version for students."
"The documentation for MagicDraw and the video tutorials compared to other competitors is an area for improvement."
"There are some technical features that you have to study and do research on to be able to understand."
"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."
"There's lots of documentation. They process multiples of guides. They've got all kinds of guides and documentation out there, but it's kind of hard to find. There are a lot of videos. You can go to YouTube and find videos on how it's been used in different ways, but it just kind of scratches the surface."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Scalability-wise, it is an expensive product."
"Pricing will differ between enterprises based on needs such as customization, but the company uses a standardized algorithm for determining this."
"In addition to the initial cost, you have to pay annually for support in order to get the upgrades."
"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."
"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)."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Design solutions are best for your needs.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Retailer
8%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Government
14%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about BIC Platform ?
The central dictionary is a valuable feature.
What needs improvement with BIC Platform ?
The solution could improve its connectivity to other systems. For instance, I need new connections to KPIs. KPIs are linked to processes, I can't access the dictionary of processes to make KPIs.
What is your primary use case for BIC Platform ?
We use the solution for drawing the processes.
What do you like most about No Magic MagicDraw?
There is a lot of documentation available on the Internet to understand its functionality.
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?
I don't think there are areas that need improvement.
 

Also Known As

BIC Cloud BPM, BIC Platform
MagicDraw
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Daimler AG Siemens AG RWE Bundesministerium des Innern Uniklinikum Köln Vattenfall Ziemann Dermapharm AG Postbank LBBW EDEKA
Northrop Grumman, Labcorp, Deposco, ClearView Training, IT Services Promotion Agency, Intelligent Chaos, Metalithic Systems Inc., Sodifrance
Find out what your peers are saying about BIC Platform vs. No Magic MagicDraw and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.