Coming October 25: PeerSpot Awards will be announced! Learn more

No Magic MagicDraw OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

No Magic MagicDraw is #12 ranked solution in Business Process Design tools. PeerSpot users give No Magic MagicDraw an average rating of 7.6 out of 10. No Magic MagicDraw is most commonly compared to Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect: No Magic MagicDraw vs Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect. No Magic MagicDraw is popular among the large enterprise segment, accounting for 74% of users researching this solution on PeerSpot. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a government, accounting for 16% of all views.
Buyer's Guide

Download the Business Process Design Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: September 2022

What is No Magic MagicDraw?

No Magic MagicDraw is a versatile solution designed to enable users to work on everything from business processes to architecture or software and system modeling.

No Magic MagicDraw is an extremely robust solution that is designed for a range of professionals. This product is invaluable to business analysts, software analysts, programmers, QA engineers, and documentation writers. It is a highly dynamic and versatile tool that can aid in the analysis and design of Object Oriented (OO) systems. It maximizes the ability of teams to work in tandem by allowing everyone working on a particular project to automatically gain access to the newest version of the model that they are working on. This way everyone can work on their part of the project without having to worry about updating each part of the project individually.

Benefits of No Magic MagicDraw

Some of the benefits of using No Magic MagicDraw include:

  • The ability for users to easily adapt to the overall feel of the solution. Users will easily get used to the layout of No Magic MagicDraw regardless of the field they are coming from. Users also learn how to use No Magic MagicDraw features fairly easily. No Magic MagicDraw implements new features at the request of users. This means that the design of the solution is based on the specific needs of the people who use it. Users can quickly learn how to use the various features as they mirror the specific habits of those who use it.
  • The ability to access and manage models created by the software from anywhere in the world. Anyone who is authorized to work on the models can access them so long as they have an internet connection. Work can be completed at any time and from any place, which will greatly increase corporate productivity.

Reviews from Real Users

No Magic MagicDraw stands out among its competitors for a number of reasons. Two major ones are the way that it enables users to efficiently create models and the overall robustness of the solution. Users are given the ability to efficiently and accurately model the requirements of whatever it is that they are creating. No Magic MagicDraw provides users with many valuable features that allow them to maximize what they can do with the solution.

PeerSpot user Wayne L., a Systems Engineer at SIMTRS, notes the way in which No Magic MagicDraw allows users to create models more efficiently. He writes, “We are getting away from the old ways of writing a lot of papers and requirements documents, architecture documents, technical solution documents, interface documents - those days are gone. MagicDraw allows you to model the requirements, and by doing so, you've got a good chance of not missing any requirements. The old way of doing things was to decompose the requirements into shell statements. But when you model it, you will be able to practically make sure you don't miss anything. MagicDraw has a good modeling tool you use for case diagrams. Its use case diagram is part of the UML and SysML that you can use to model requirements to create an architecture. I've created a lot of architectures for the Army and also mapped those components of the architecture as the test procedures.”

PeerSpot user Terry J., the president at I2R, Inc., notes the robustness of No Magic MagicDraw when he writes, "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."

No Magic MagicDraw was previously known as MagicDraw.

No Magic MagicDraw Customers

Northrop Grumman, Labcorp, Deposco, ClearView Training, IT Services Promotion Agency, Intelligent Chaos, Metalithic Systems Inc., Sodifrance

No Magic MagicDraw Video

No Magic MagicDraw Pricing Advice

What users are saying about No Magic MagicDraw pricing:
"The licensing is on a yearly basis, and it's expensive."

No Magic MagicDraw Reviews

Filter by:
Filter Reviews
Industry
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Company Size
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Job Level
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Rating
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Considered
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Order by:
Loading...
  • Date
  • Highest Rating
  • Lowest Rating
  • Review Length
Search:
Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
Systems Engeriner at SIMTRS
Real User
I like the simulation part, so you can simulate your model to validate it
Pros and Cons
  • "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."
  • "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."

What is our primary use case?

It's now called Cameo Enterprise Architect 19. It is my system engineering tool.

I do systems engineering. If you go to my website, www.simtrs.com, there are simulation and training for this solution. You will see the benefits of MagicDraw and how I use it.

I use it for systems engineering and life cycle systems engineering, and even for deployment. 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.

What is most valuable?

We are getting away from the old ways of writing a lot of papers and requirements documents, architecture documents, technical solution documents, interface documents - those days are gone. MagicDraw allows you to model the requirements and by doing so, you've got a good chance of not missing any requirements. The old way of doing things was to decompose the requirements into shell statements.

But when you model it, you will be able to practically make sure you don't miss anything. MagicDraw has a good modeling tool you use for case diagrams. Its use case diagram is part of the UML and SysML that you can use to model requirements to create an architecture. I've created a lot of architectures for the Army and also mapped those components of the architecture as the test procedures.

What needs improvement?

I wouldn't say anything negative about No Magic MagicDraw. But there is a steep learning curve. The steep learning curve applies to two things - system engineering and INCOSE. INCOSE, I-N-C-O-S-E international systems engineering. INCOSE is what most people use today for system engineering, for building systems, and deploying and maintaining them in a full life cycle. For MagicDraw there is a steep learning curve if you don't have the system engineering domain experience because a lot of folks go in there and say, "Okay, I'm going to do model-based system engineering." MagicDraw has a model-based system engineering tool but it only allows you to draw the diagram or the model. Then you need to understand the relationships between the processes and activities.

So some people can pick it up, but it's a steep learning curve. You have to do the correct keystrokes to portray what it is you're really trying to do. You take a picture, an ER diagram, Entity Relationship diagram, which is a diagram that shows all the components and how they relate to each other, not just an arrow. You can say this component influences another component or another component enables integration, etc... Things like that. You have to know what your relationships are and MagicDraw allows you to do that really well.

But they do provide manuals. They have a lot of manuals that you can go through for each plug-in they have. You have the system engineering piece, and then you have the DoDAAC, which is the DOD architecture. They use what they call a UPDM, that's a DoDAAC standard. You also have the UAF. System Ellis is the base for everything, but you've got other pieces for the government first. When working for the government, they require that you do your architecture using the DoDAAC. So it has the DoDAAC too, because the government likes certain things. It depends on who your customer is and what they want.

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using No Magic MagicDraw for about 10 years.

Buyer's Guide
Business Process Design
September 2022
Find out what your peers are saying about Dassault, Sparx Systems, Microsoft and others in Business Process Design. Updated: September 2022.
633,572 professionals have used our research since 2012.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The way MagicDraw scales is very good. You have the team server which allows a lot of people to use the product for a specific path. I can create different pieces because you don't want to have hundreds of sheets of the same model. Imagine you're flying a plane and you come over a city and see the view from 10,000 feet. But then as you come down you come into more details. When you're on the ground you'll be going to a bathroom, for example. If you want a model of the bathroom you've got to be able to set it up.

MagicDraw will scale that way, but someone has to be able to set it up to give you that granularity. You can get the bird's eye view or you can get the pie in the sky. It's like you are in an aircraft. You can see the city, but as you come down lower, you see the cars start running on the freeways. And as you get lower, you can see the toll booths and the gas stations. That is how it scales, but you have to have the ingenuity to be able to model it so that you can flip from model to model, which it allows. But it would be nice if I could have hyperlinks in there, where I could take the big model, click and see, just like you see Google Earth.

As you click it further up and down, it gets bigger and smaller and smaller and smaller until you get down to the very house that you live in. It'd be nice if they add hyperlinks or something like that so your customer wouldn't have to be an expert in MagicDraw. Because the way it is now, I have to import it to JPEG's or to files and organize it in such a way that it would take me a lot of time to describe what an architecture is. This is especially true for large systems. For small systems it's not a problem but for large systems it can be. For example, if you want to draw an architectural automobile, you start with the basics. But then when you start drilling down into the engine and the carburetor and all those different things, it can get very hairy. So you've got to be able to organize it in such a way and that capability isn't there. You have to do that manually.

What other advice do I have?

On a scale of one to ten, I would give No Magic MagicDraw a nine.

Overall I find it very effective and the customers are happy with it.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
SCM Build/Release Manager at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Pretty easy to use and versatile, but doesn't support code engineering and can be overly complicated at times
Pros and Cons
  • "It is pretty easy to use. It is pretty versatile."
  • "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."

What is our primary use case?

We use it to build the physical/logical domains to hold requirements, specifications, use cases, and all the way down to class definitions.

We're using version 19 or 20. I have a version of MagicDraw installed on my local PC, but all of our models are centrally located.

What is most valuable?

It is pretty easy to use. It is pretty versatile.

What needs improvement?

It is pretty versatile, but that versatility also brings some complications. Sometimes, it can be overly complicated to do some trivial things. It would be helpful if they gave you some best practices in their toolset.

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using this solution for three or four years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is like any tool. It has bugs. We fly through some of the bugs.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

In terms of using multiple programs and scaling your models appropriately, the tool is pretty large, and you can go in many different directions. It is not straightforward, and it is not intuitive on how to directly scale things because you can make decisions at a low level that affect multiple paths for scaling that aren't readily available. You don't really understand them until you try to scale.

In terms of its users, our software team and our scientists are using it for a couple of different programs. In terms of maintenance, our team doesn't do the maintenance for it. Our company performs maintenance.

How are customer service and support?

They were okay. I dealt with them specifically around the code engineering aspects of it, but upgrading their ability to do code engineering was not in their roadmap, which was a bit frustrating.

How was the initial setup?

The code engineering portion seems intuitive. Just like Sparx, it is not that difficult, but the problem is that if you want to take advantage of the latest C++ standards, MagicDraw doesn't support it.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

It was in our roadmap to do model-based systems engineering. It was a pretty well-used tool. So, we just picked it up because of the requirements of the program.

What other advice do I have?

In my 25 years of engineering, I could have used different aspects of it in any program. It is a large tool, and it is pretty versatile, but it can be overly complicated at times. So, having a good frame of reference and a direction is helpful. The tool itself isn't going to guide you on the best practices and best decisions, but there are many different best practices out there.

It is a good tool. I would rate it a solid seven out of ten.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
PeerSpot user
Buyer's Guide
Business Process Design
September 2022
Find out what your peers are saying about Dassault, Sparx Systems, Microsoft and others in Business Process Design. Updated: September 2022.
633,572 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Director, Strategy and Consulting at a university with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Integrates well with requirements management tools but needs profiles and ready-to-use patterns
Pros and Cons
  • "I think one of the key things is the plugins for integration with requirements management tools like Doors"
  • "The UI UX of the tool is not really user-friendly and needs to be completely reformed."

What is our primary use case?

We use it for model based system engineering (MDSE).

What is most valuable?

I think one of the key things is the plugins for integration with requirements management tools like Doors. I think this is very helpful.

No Magic MagicDraw provides a lot of good features on functionality.

What needs improvement?

The documentation for MagicDraw and the video tutorials compared to those of the other companies are really a big area for improvement.

The other area would be having some profiles and ready-to-use patterns. It's something that is missing in MagicDraw compared to that in other tools. I think that it would be very helpful to have such profiles and ready-to-use patterns that would kickstart any architecture asset.

Licensing is expensive for this solution.

I believe that the overall UX needs to be completely reformed. The UI UX of the tool is not really user-friendly.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using MagicDraw for probably three years now.

How are customer service and technical support?

Our experience with technical support was positive. They responded in 24 to 48 hours.

How was the initial setup?

I think the overall setup was very straightforward and easy; nothing was really complex. It took a minimal amount of time given that it's on-premises.

What about the implementation team?

I did the deployment myself.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The licensing is on a yearly basis, and it's expensive. This is one of the qualms of this solution, and that's one of the reasons why we're not going to continue using it.

I would rate it at seven on scale from one to ten because it's still a good tool. It provides a lot of good features on functionality but still has room for improvement.

What other advice do I have?

Before you start implementing No Magic MagicDraw, I would definitely recommend that you look at other solutions. You could take a look at Sparks and compare both Sparks and MagicDraw before you proceed with MagicDraw.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
PalcsoAttila - PeerSpot reviewer
CEO at SEP Consulting kft.
Real User
Top 5
Has good accuracy and flexibility
Pros and Cons
  • "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 licenses are expensive compared to similar tools. At the moment, the user is open to using MagicDraw if it's 15% more than other solutions. If it were to cost any more, they wouldn't use it."

What is our primary use case?

We use MagicDraw for software design from scratch. We redesigned an electric signature in the last year. It is a good tool. It's a little better than Enterprise Architect. But we cannot delegate the final processes to the user client. I need to export the results to Confluence where the client can check it.

What needs improvement?

The licenses are expensive compared to similar tools. At the moment, the user is open to using MagicDraw if it's 15% more than other solutions. If it were to cost any more, they wouldn't use it. 

For how long have I used the solution?

-

How are customer service and technical support?

Technical support is okay. If we have a question, they respond. 

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is complex. The repository has to be installed. It's complex and it should be easier. Our clients are enterprise-sized. They have 60 people who work in software development. This company only focuses on a certain project. We also work with a medium-sized company that has bigger projects. 

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

The only other solution I know is Enterprise Architect. I got reports for the BI. My company is looking to take a step forward and closer to BI solutions. I looked at solutions that we can use for development in the next year.

What other advice do I have?

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. 

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Reseller.
PeerSpot user
Director, Strategy and Consulting at a university with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Good model-based engineering and responsive support, but the documentation needs improvement
Pros and Cons
  • "The MBFC capability of MagicDraw is higher than the other competitors."
  • "The documentation for MagicDraw and the video tutorials compared to other competitors is an area for improvement."

What is our primary use case?

I am using MagicDraw as part of my research project.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature of this solution would be model-based system engineering. The MBSE capability of MagicDraw is higher than the other competitors.

What needs improvement?

The documentation for MagicDraw and the video tutorials compared to other competitors is an area for improvement.

In the next release, I would like to see more profiles and ready to use patterns. Rather than working from scratch, I would like to be able to tap into these patterns.

Some of the other competitors have that capability and I think that it is extremely helpful.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's a stable solution. We have not had any issues.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I am not able to assess the scalability as we have not attempted to scale beyond the initial installation.

How are customer service and technical support?

My experience with technical support was good.

I haven't interacted with them often but their response was reasonably fast. I usually get a response within 24 to 48 hours.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is straightforward.

What about the implementation team?

We completed the implementation in-house.

What other advice do I have?

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Buyer's Guide
Download our free Business Process Design Report and find out what your peers are saying about Dassault, Sparx Systems, Microsoft, and more!
Updated: September 2022
Product Categories
Business Process Design
Buyer's Guide
Download our free Business Process Design Report and find out what your peers are saying about Dassault, Sparx Systems, Microsoft, and more!