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

MEGA HOPEX 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

MEGA HOPEX
Ranking in Business Process Design
7th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
41
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Architecture Management (3rd), GRC (4th)
No Magic MagicDraw
Ranking in Business Process Design
14th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Business Process Design category, the mindshare of MEGA HOPEX is 3.2%, down from 3.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of No Magic MagicDraw is 2.9%, down from 3.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Design Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
MEGA HOPEX3.2%
No Magic MagicDraw2.9%
Other93.9%
Business Process Design
 

Featured Reviews

JorgeValdez - PeerSpot reviewer
A simple and intuitive tool that provides more features than other tools in the market
The solution can be used to model customer journeys and business processes I use the solution for my customers to model banking products. I also model and define business capability. The biggest value of the product is that we can use it to work in different industries like government,…
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 most valuable feature is the completeness of HOPEX's meta-model. It's a strong meta-model that's rigid but comprehensive. It's a logical fit for our understanding of how we want things modeled in our database."
"I have observed MegaHOPEX has capabilities in architecture and other areas."
"As a data governance leader, I am looking to understand the capabilities of Mega for data governance, such as data awareness, business glossary, data catalog, and some business rules or management."
"You do not need to be a professional of enterprise modeling to contribute to the enrichment and improvement of the enterprise repository."
"The dashboard on the homepage makes for an enhanced view at a glance of the various work functions applicable to the user."
"The strength of MEGA HOPEX lies in its ability to customize the metamodel."
"The main feature I find crucial in MEGA HOPEX is the catalog view, which provides a comprehensive visualization of all artifacts in one repository. Another valuable aspect is the availability of out-of-the-box outcomes, such as strategy maps and BPA models, eliminating the need for additional configuration. MEGA HOPEX allows users to focus on specific business areas, like risk management or data governance, providing a high-level overview while enabling deep dives into specific areas of interest. For risk management, MEGA HOPEX allows users to assess impacts, create recovery plans, and track action plans."
"What's most valuable in MEGA HOPEX is that it follows the reference model where each component is defined. I also like the diagram consistency in MEGA HOPEX."
"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 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."
"It is pretty easy to use. It is pretty versatile."
"The most valuable feature of No Magic MagicDraw is the simulation capabilities and interface."
"The initial setup was not straightforward."
"The MBFC capability of MagicDraw is higher than the other competitors."
"The most valuable feature is the amount of flexibility that one has to model, which is great for an individual."
 

Cons

"The solution is quite expensive."
"The product must improve integration with other tools."
"The solution lacks additional models compared to other tools."
"The tool usability is weak and it also has a high learning curve."
"It would be great if this solution could integrate with other tools such as ITSM (ServiceNow) or CMDB."
"The training materials and learning process need improvement."
"The interface must be improved."
"They do tend to push people to their professional services, instead of helping the customers with their problems. I understand this is their business. At the same time, however, they need to work on fact sheets or offer some program to help the customers who want to implement it themselves and to make it run properly in their environment."
"The technical support is not very good."
"The price of the solution could be reduced."
"It would be better if the User Interface were updated. At the moment, it's a classic environment. It reminds me of the old Windows interface, for example, Windows 95. It would be better to make it more user-friendly. It would also be better if it could integrate with SAP solutions. It isn't easy to find experts in the field. It's hard to find people around the globe that have the necessary skills and expertise to manage this solution. For example, in our case, we needed someone with refrigeration knowledge that also knew how to use the tool, and that was a challenge. We also had issues relating to erasing. Sometimes, it kept it in the background and didn't erase it at all. We had to review the entire list to ensure that the item was deleted."
"The documentation for MagicDraw and the video tutorials compared to other competitors is an area for improvement."
"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."
"Some of No Magic MagicDraw's most valuable features were its integration with other simulation tools, such as MATLAB, the seasonal plugin, and the Rangel simulation toolkit."
"There could be a trial version for students."
"When I am working with my Mac and I right-click to copy and paste, it doesn't work."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product is reasonably priced for the value it offers. There's a good balance between cost and features."
"The tool is relatively expensive."
"The product has a high cost."
"It is very expensive."
"I've been told that MEGA HOPEX is very expensive, which is why small organizations dismiss the tool. It's complex and costly versus other simpler and cheaper solutions."
"If you want to use additional features, such as the Risk Management capability, then it is a little too expensive."
"The price of the support depends on the vendors that are reselling this module or the MEGA HOPEX version 5. We are on premium support and are their only partners in the GCC, we have a premium support contract with them. The support we have is not with the client. The client does not bear the cost, it's us who bear the cost."
"MEGA HOPEX's licensing costs are yearly."
"I rate the pricing a ten out of ten. It is an expensive product compared to software for model-based system engineering."
"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 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.
867,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Government
9%
Computer Software Company
9%
Insurance Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
22%
Government
13%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business15
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise24
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise7
 

Questions from the Community

Any experience with Strategic Project Portfolio Management Solutions?
Hi @Cheryl Joseph ​Looking at the crossover between Project and Portfolio management with EA, then Planview could be a good choice. If looking at Portfolio Management from an EA perspective then Le...
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?
For CAMEO, it's not only the ease of use, it's versatility, its communicability, but Rhapsody is the worst tool I've ever used. It is very difficult, not user-friendly, and very expensive. It works...
 

Also Known As

No data available
MagicDraw
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Aetna, Fannie Mae, M&T Bank, Glatfelter Insurance Group, Zions Management Services Company, The College Board, Baxter Credit Union, AXA Financial, Missouri Department of Conservation, New York State OTDA, MEG Energy Corp, Walgreens, Procter & Gamble, Biogen Idec, Gilead Sciences, Organic Valley, Trinity Health, Nissan and Ford
Northrop Grumman, Labcorp, Deposco, ClearView Training, IT Services Promotion Agency, Intelligent Chaos, Metalithic Systems Inc., Sodifrance
Find out what your peers are saying about MEGA HOPEX vs. No Magic MagicDraw and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
867,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.