We performed a comparison between Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center and Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Design solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."One notable software-related benefit from a user perspective is our improved ability to identify opportunities for automation and process enhancement just by gaining a clearer view of the processes. There are two valuable aspects. First, setting up the process architecture is commendable. Second, not having to maintain different versions of processes is a notable benefit. The solution is stable. The support team is responsive."
"The most valuable feature is the integrated manner in which all the capabilities of the Enterprise Process Center platform work together and make it easier to complete the documentation of processes."
More Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center Pros →
"Customizable and tailored to the environment. Several template frameworks are provided."
"Sparx offers good flexibility."
"It's like a repository. So far, we use it only for Information Modelling."
"The company has become more efficient and reduced its budget."
"Scalable solution for modeling, project sharing, and collaboration. Support for it is good."
"Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is very flexible and it is simple to define the metamodel. Additionally, it is lightweight on resources."
"Its traversability is most valuable. I can use ArchiMate, and I can create a UML model. ArchiMate is for logical enterprise architecture, UML is for software engineering, and BPMN is for business processes. I can build it to have multiple models, and they are also traversable, which is not something that every tool allows. If there is a huge organization, you can segment it and have separate models for business technology or internal resource management system. You don't need to keep them in one model, and you can decide to segregate them."
"It has led some teams to do better code reviews - to be less focussed on coding conventions (syntax) and more focussed on the semantics because of the abstraction level clear design affords."
"As with all such platforms, Enterprise Process Center is a complex tool and there are many capabilities and features that take time to learn."
"However, on the process mining side, there's potential for improvement to gain deeper insights into process functionality. Additionally, there's always room for enhancement in the user interface."
More Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center Cons →
"The solution needs to offer better support for the mobile-based system. Right now, it's not working."
"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."
"Even if there are web-based tools in the Enterprise Architecture tool ecosystem (like Prolaborate), the main modeling application is still a fat client application."
"The elements of the modeling sets can have better customization and visual representation. It would be great to have a mobile version."
"The documentation needs a bit of improvement. What I find is that when I'm trying to do something specific for some part of a project, in terms of documentation, it's kind of hard to get at figuring out if you don't use it all the time."
"For data modeling, it is not very mature when comparing with other data modeling tools."
"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."
"Its best features are not intuitive or easy to learn. Most companies I have worked with, when I see what they are doing with it , are not using more than 5% of what they could and should be doing with it."
More Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect Pricing and Cost Advice →
Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center is ranked 20th in Business Process Design with 2 reviews while Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is ranked 4th in Business Process Design with 97 reviews. Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center is rated 9.0, while Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center writes "Highly integrated, user-friendly, and supports mobile devices". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect writes "Easy to set up and had no issues with stability, but it's not a very friendly tool, and its database modeling and entity-relationship modeling functions need improvement". Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center is most compared with , whereas Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is most compared with Visual Paradigm, Visio, No Magic MagicDraw, LeanIX and Lucidchart. See our Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center vs. Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect 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.
