We performed a comparison between No Magic MagicDraw and TIBCO Nimbus Control based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Camunda, Software AG and others in Business Process Design."The most valuable features are the visibility, standard compliance, and interface."
"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 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 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 technical support is very good."
"It helps clients find information when they need to know how to do their jobs effectively."
"It tends to get more engagement from people across the business."
"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."
"There are some technical features that you have to study and do research on to be able to understand."
"They don't really support code engineering, and that's why we have to move to Enterprise Architect. MagicDraw is stuck at C++03 standards, whereas most C++ programs today want to use the latest definition of the C++ standards. We were at C++11, and we wanted to do code engineering with C++11 or 17, but they didn't support it. That pushed us into a different tool, which is Sparx Enterprise Architect."
"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."
"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 cost of upgrading the product should be lower."
"This product could probably do with less features rather than more. It is overly complicated. In recent releases, it has become harder to use."
Earn 20 points
No Magic MagicDraw is ranked 10th in Business Process Design with 17 reviews while TIBCO Nimbus Control is ranked 22nd in Business Process Design. No Magic MagicDraw is rated 8.2, while TIBCO Nimbus Control is rated 5.0. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of TIBCO Nimbus Control writes "It is overly complicated. It tends to get more engagement from people across the business". No Magic MagicDraw is most compared with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, Visio, Visual Paradigm, Lucidchart and erwin Data Modeler by Quest, whereas TIBCO Nimbus Control is most compared with SAP Signavio Process Manager, Visio and ARIS BPA.
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.