No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

OpenText ProVision vs Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect 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

OpenText ProVision
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
27th
Average Rating
6.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Management (BPM) (44th)
Sparx Systems Enterprise Ar...
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
4th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
99
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Enterprise Architecture Management category, the mindshare of OpenText ProVision is 1.5%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is 8.9%, down from 13.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Architecture Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect8.9%
OpenText ProVision1.5%
Other89.6%
Enterprise Architecture Management
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1944672 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Director, Head of Process & Functional Architecture, Intelligent Automation at a real estate/law firm with 10,001+ employees
Good attribute attachment but problems with collaboration
I primarily use OpenText ProVision to create our end-to-end process repository and library for different parts of the organization, capturing the collaboration process to get the right inputs OpenText ProVision's best feature is the capability to attach a variety of attributes and extract and…
Milan Sterba - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Enterprise Architect at Deepview S.r.o.
Efficient documentation generation through organized model structure with a good price-performance ratio
Whenever I begin a new project with Sparx, I have to spend time training people on how to use it since it is not straightforward. Although it's a powerful product with plenty of features, it's not easy for even experienced users to find their way without guidance. This is not the most user-friendly solution.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"OpenText ProVision's best feature is the capability to attach a variety of attributes and extract and analyze that information."
"I like that all the features come as part of a standard license and that one license covers everything."
"The stability of the product is very good."
"For what Sparx EA can offer, it’s the best tool that we had."
"This solution makes my work very easy."
"The solution saved a lot of time, about 30%."
"I like that there is support for software patterns."
"Supporting all of the important architecture modeling notations and all types and levels of architecture modeling in a secure, collaborative, and well-integrated model repository is really unifying and beneficial."
"Flexibility Open DB."
"I tend to come back to Sparx because it is the best value for the money."
"Its ability to reference and link to components from any diagram and the vast number of frameworks supported make it easy to get started with modelling."
 

Cons

"There are a number of drawbacks. Mainly, the collaboration is lacking to some extent - at least when it comes to how we are using it."
"OpenText ProVision's collaboration management is quite complicated and difficult to use."
"Integrating with or interfacing with other tools like data management tools would be very helpful."
"My main complaint is that the solution is not open source in the sense that you can't have your own in-house developments."
"Lacks the ability to have your own in-house developments."
"The product inherently does not support analysis of the models."
"If you are using Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect as an individual contributor, then it's not a great choice."
"We miss an integration tool like ARCSeeker which is intended to register elicited elements in a common repository with all their associations (this was removed last year)."
"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."
"The model integrity is not the same as MagicDraw, so MagicDraw is a bit better as a tool."
"It would be nice to have it supported on the Linux operating system."
"When the model is large, it is a bit slow to render."
"The user interface could be more intuitive and support for a Mac, iOS or at least a browser version would be very welcomed."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"I rate the solution's pricing a five out of ten."
"The pricing for ultimate version is steeply high."
"I use my own license. So, I just bought the professional version, which costs $800 or something like that. In the company where I am working, we have floating licenses. They are probably more expensive. Its licensing is affordable, but we are talking about a large organization, and there could be modelers or viewers of the models. We don't know how much that would cost us."
"They have the price on their site for the enterprise version, and we do receive a small discount."
"We had a yearly license."
"We have an annual license, and it's very affordable."
"Use floating licenses strategically."
"The solution is quite expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Architecture Management solutions are best for your needs.
896,942 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
16%
Construction Company
16%
Energy/Utilities Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
9%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business39
Midsize Enterprise20
Large Enterprise58
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect?
One of the reasons many public sector institutions in the Czech Republic use it is that it provides a very good price-performance ratio. While it might be cumbersome to learn, it still delivers exc...
What needs improvement with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect?
Whenever I begin a new project with Sparx, I have to spend time training people on how to use it since it is not straightforward. Although it's a powerful product with plenty of features, it's not ...
What is your primary use case for Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect?
We are mostly using the ArchiMate language to describe enterprise or solution architecture, along with a bit of use cases. We are producing quite large models, with over 10,000 elements and relatio...
 

Also Known As

Metastorm ProVision
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Delta Technology, Export Development Canada, Rompetrol, Salt River Project, AMEC, U.S. Air Force, HP Consulting & Integration
OmniLink
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText ProVision vs. Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
896,942 professionals have used our research since 2012.