"We found the technical support to be helpful."
"Provides a valuable BPMN feature."
"Simulation is most valuable."
"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 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."
"The most valuable features are the visibility, standard compliance, and interface."
"I think one of the key things is the plugins for integration with requirements management tools like Doors"
"The MBFC capability of MagicDraw is higher than the other competitors."
"The technical support is very good."
"When you look at it, No Magic is an all-encompassing tool. You can use it for business architecture design. You can use it for deploying an ERP system across your enterprise. However, it was initially designed and developed for model-based systems engineering. That's the systems engineering required to either produce an IP system or product. It takes away the mounds of paper and puts it into a model. It enables you to generate significant savings by modeling that new product or that system before you ever start developing a prototype."
"The most valuable feature is the amount of flexibility that one has to model, which is great for an individual."
"It would be nice to have a Spanish user interface available to us."
"The price could be more competitive."
"It can be more user-friendly."
"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."
"The licenses are expensive compared to similar tools. At the moment, the user is open to using MagicDraw if it's 15% more than other solutions. If it were to cost any more, they wouldn't use it."
"The UI UX of the tool is not really user-friendly and needs to be completely reformed."
"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."
"The cost of upgrading the product should be lower."
"When I am working with my Mac and I right-click to copy and paste, it doesn't work."
"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 documentation for MagicDraw and the video tutorials compared to other competitors is an area for improvement."
iGrafx is ranked 19th in Business Process Design with 3 reviews while No Magic MagicDraw is ranked 10th in Business Process Design with 8 reviews. iGrafx is rated 8.4, while No Magic MagicDraw is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of iGrafx writes "Easy to set up with useful features and good stability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of No Magic MagicDraw writes "I like the simulation part, so you can simulate your model to validate it". iGrafx is most compared with Visio, ARIS BPA, Visual Paradigm, SAP Signavio Process Manager and ARIS Cloud, whereas No Magic MagicDraw is most compared with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, Visio, Visual Paradigm and erwin Data Modeler (DM). See our No Magic MagicDraw vs. iGrafx report.
See our list of best Business Process Design vendors.
We monitor all Business Process Design 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.
