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

IBM Rational System Architect vs Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect 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

IBM Rational System Architect
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
19th
Average Rating
7.4
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Sparx Systems Enterprise Ar...
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
2nd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
99
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Enterprise Architecture Management category, the mindshare of IBM Rational System Architect is 1.8%, down from 2.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is 13.2%, down from 17.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Architecture Management
 

Featured Reviews

GM
Lots of valuable features, especially the metamodel customization
In terms of what could be improved, we did not take the whole package with all the modules, and I think that the integration with other platforms like Office could be better. The reverse engineering of the database is already there, but in the next release I would like to see some pilot supplied with the solution in order to address any database.
Milan Sterba - PeerSpot reviewer
Efficient documentation generation through organized model structure with a good price-performance ratio
Whenever I begin a new project with Sparx, I have to spend time training people on how to use it since it is not straightforward. Although it's a powerful product with plenty of features, it's not easy for even experienced users to find their way without guidance. This is not the most user-friendly solution.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The user interface is good. It's both clear and comprehensible. It's easy to work with."
"We have seen ROI with this solution over the years that we have used it."
"The solution is pretty stable."
"There are a lot of features I find valuable, but I think that the metamodel customization is one of the best features that the solution offers."
"Some of the business processes are very easy to compare when you have the diagrams."
"Features good reporting facilities coupled with a concrete database."
"For the most part, we find that it is remarkable how inexpensive it is."
"Scalable solution for modeling, project sharing, and collaboration. Support for it is good."
"Modeling is a part of my work, and it has a lot of standard modeling languages. It is quite wide, and a lot is possible in it. We are not programming it ourselves, but if you are into programming and developing software yourself, you can go further and do a lot with Sparx. You can work from the framework and go into the details. With this solution, you get a lot of value at a low cost. It is also quite intuitive in terms of use. I like the use of it."
"The Business Process Modeling or BPM part is the most valuable. Its ability to simulate scenarios is also very useful. It can also create descriptions of the workflows. It has a feature in which if you create some BPMN process, a workflow diagram, and the description inside, you can actually simulate the whole scenario, and you get the description. That's very handy."
"The stability has been good and satisfactory. I would rate the stability a ten out of ten."
"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."
 

Cons

"This solution can be more user-friendly and easier to use, with better dashboards."
"The solution needs to better integrate with other products, like Microsoft."
"The reverse engineering of the database is already there, but in the next release I would like to see some pilot supplied with the solution in order to address any database."
"There needs to be more information at the outset about how to use the solution and how to deploy it. The deployment process needs improvement."
"The database management area was not usable."
"When the model is large, it is a bit slow to render."
"When collaborating with other people, it needs to be more user-friendly."
"It can be improved in the area of shared documentation. The idea is that the architecture tool can call back to an enterprise asset, pull that information, and link that as a sub-artifact."
"The documentation could be better. Where I work, we speak French and we don't speak English, so we don't have anything in French. It's perfect in English, but we need something in French."
"The automatic creation of reports based on the model elements could be improved."
"More challenging than other tools to maintain documents and document versions for an architecture board review."
"I have found the solution is lacking options. The general usability needs improvement and more compliance to CML definitions."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"We have an annual license, and it's very affordable."
"We paid 1200 euros as a once-off cost. All add ons and integrations come at an additional cost."
"Licenses are pretty low cost compared to, for example, ARIS."
"Its price is very good for the value that you get with it."
"It's reasonably priced for large organizations."
"There is no license required for this solution."
"Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is priced well. The price we pay is approximately $20 per month. Other solutions I have found to be much more expensive."
"It’s the best deal in town, by far."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Architecture Management solutions are best for your needs.
862,499 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Government
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Government
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect?
The stability has been good and satisfactory. I would rate the stability a ten out of ten.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect?
One of the reasons many public sector institutions in the Czech Republic use it is that it provides a very good price-performance ratio. While it might be cumbersome to learn, it still delivers exc...
What needs improvement with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect?
Whenever I begin a new project with Sparx, I have to spend time training people on how to use it since it is not straightforward. Although it's a powerful product with plenty of features, it's not ...
 

Also Known As

Rational System Architect
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Wuxi Lake Cloud, Nationwide, ETI, IDS Scheer
OmniLink
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational System Architect vs. Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
862,499 professionals have used our research since 2012.