We performed a comparison between MEGA HOPEX and No Magic MagicDraw 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."The most valuable feature for this solution is the automatic updating and propagation of changes across the system."
"We have many use cases for this solution but the feature I have found most valuable is the IT Portfolio Management module."
"It generates friendly websites and presents specific views of the enterprise (business, functional, applicative, technological, and infrastructure)."
"This is a complete package with all of the functionality that we need."
"Customer support is fantastic. They are very helpful whenever we get on the line with the support team."
"The ability to customize is valuable."
"We use the portfolio management feature heavily."
"You do not need to be a professional of enterprise modeling to contribute to the enrichment and improvement of the enterprise repository."
"No Magic has the tools and capability to model a complete enterprise and all product lines."
"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 features are the visibility, standard compliance, and interface."
"The most valuable feature of No Magic MagicDraw is the simulation capabilities and interface."
"There is a lot of documentation available on the Internet to understand its functionality."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to quickly build multiple layers within the organizational and business process environments, as well as in the SysML product environments, and converting to files that can be accessed by clients who do not have a system and a teamwork server access."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the amount of flexibility that one has to model, which is great for an individual."
"MEGA HOPEX can improve process simulation in the BPA module. If the solution was better we would not have to use another solution for this purpose. Simulating scenarios in the future for the to-be processes is in demand. If we can have the simulation engine built inside MEGA HOPEX, we would not have to purchase another license or solution to integrate them with each other. This would be a great improvement."
"The product must improve integration with other tools."
"MEGA HOPEX's initial setup could be easier. The newer version is better but they still need to improve the process. The deployment took approximately four to eight hours."
"I cannot recall coming across any missing features."
"In my experience, I've encountered difficulties with consuming custom packages in MEGA HOPEX, which leads to redundant work when deploying them to production. This is an area where improvement is needed. While version six offers better UI and UX, resolving this issue should be a priority. I believe it's important to fully explore MEGA HOPEX's capabilities before suggesting new ones."
"This product is expensive and would be improved by lowering its price."
"I would like to see more regular updates released."
"The tool's UI should be more user-friendly."
"The technical support is not very good."
"The cost of upgrading the product should be lower."
"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 are some technical features that you have to study and do research on to be able to understand."
"The UI UX of the tool is not really user-friendly and needs to be completely reformed."
"The price of the solution could be reduced."
"I would like to see the ability to deploy live business process models and capture real-time data (without the need for another product tool) so you don't have to be dependent on other products for this functionality."
"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."
MEGA HOPEX is ranked 10th in Business Process Design with 35 reviews while No Magic MagicDraw is ranked 9th in Business Process Design with 17 reviews. MEGA HOPEX is rated 7.8, while No Magic MagicDraw is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of MEGA HOPEX writes "Easy to use and robust with good features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of No Magic MagicDraw writes "Pretty easy to use and versatile, but doesn't support code engineering and can be overly complicated at times". MEGA HOPEX is most compared with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, LeanIX, ARIS BPA, Visio and Avolution ABACUS, whereas No Magic MagicDraw is most compared with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, Visio, Visual Paradigm, Lucidchart and Bizagi. See our MEGA HOPEX vs. No Magic MagicDraw 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.