Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect Reviews

We are using Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect for model-based system engineering.

I have found the solution is lacking options. The general usability needs improvement and more compliance to CML definitions.

I have been using Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect for approximately two years.

The stability could improve.

The scalability could improve in my experience.

We have hundreds of employees in my company that are using this solution.

The company does not put a lot of focus on technical support. I am not sure if they are overloaded but there is improvement needed.

I was previously using PTC Windchill and we switched to Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect because it was too expensive.

The installation was very easy.

Our IT department did the implementation of the solution.

I would not recommend this solution to others.

I rate Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect a five out of ten.

I want a solution that can interface with Jira and Confluence, both of which my customers have, as well as with that of Bizagi.

A feature I like most about Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is its ease of use. 

My customers use Bizagi, although I do not. I don't want to change this. What should be improved, however, are the integration capabilities of the solution with Bizagi. 

I work with IBM in enterprise architecture as the project manager. I used to use IBM Rational System Architect. I can now see as a consultant what I am able to offer the customer, not only that of IBM, of course. I am currently seeking solutions other than IBM. 

I previously used other tools, such as IBM's enterprise architect, although the tool has since been sold and the company changed. The IBM tool offers certain customization features which are not found in Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, although I can live with what it has at the moment. 

Since all the staff is already trained in Bizagi and find it easy to use, I do not wish to change this, but only to load all the processes from it to Sparx. This is my approach. 

The Bizagi model is only for process. It is not an enterprise architect tool. Only Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, but not Bizagi, allows one to make diagrams and metrics, to examine the relationship between all the elements.

• Teamwork support
• Price policy
• Support of many modelling languages
• Documentation generation incorporation

From the island of non managed analysis and design information to shared repositories with templates. It has helped us with real MDA and code generation directly into Visual Studio.

• A service over repository is more then needed. At least a read only service for JSON or SOAP endpoints
• To be able access models or element from custom apps or scripts on the server side
• The web interface which can show project tree with the model should be better

We've been using it for at least eight years, since v7.

We've had no deployment issues.

MS Office integration works only with local .eap repository files, not with our Postgres repository. Half a year ago they promised to fix this bug, but still no improvement.

We've had no issues scaling it to our needs.

It's sufficient.

It's sufficient.

Rational - no DB repository and it needed to be merged among the team members as XML files via external versioning system. Documentation, requirements, development all needed to be bought as separate tools which was too expensive. It crashes when a project (repo in files) is really big. There's no possibility to merge in real time and this can last hours, and often crashes.

It was straightforward.

We did it in-house.

It's sufficient, nothing to change with the pricing.

We use Enterprise Architect for application inventory and rationalization.

The modeling tool is targeted toward a sophisticated user.

I have been using Enterprise Architect for a year.

Enterprise Architect is stable.

Sparx technical support is good. 

The tool fits best within the IT realm vs Business. I would advise against using the tool when deployed within a collaborative environment with business users.

I've used it in six organisations over 10 years.

• Ability to use a single shared repository and defined languages, using both ArchiMate as the modelling language and the business language based on the repository contents. 
• It’s easy to deploy in a small workgroup.

• Ability to either offline with replication, documentation, HTML reporting
• The strength of the modelling and analysis tools. 

• Documentation generation needs significant improvement.
• More rigorous support of the ArchiMate rules would be a great improvement.

Ability to model and create view under same roof. The ribbon style editor coupled with capability to manage requirements, design and delivery in the same application simplified my life tremendously.

All requirements management is now moved to EA.

The templates for documentation should be enhanced to include complex documents such as template RFP, or Non functional requirements template. Currently, eixsting template documents are based on diagrams and needs to be combined and customized.

1 year

Excellent.

I was previously using Microsoft Visio and PowerPoint for creating visual models.

Very easy.

The pricing for ultimate version is steeply high. 

Class diagrams, component diagrams, and sequence diagrams. In our organization, we use Sparx EA for low level architecture which connects to the enterprise architecture. We use it to document information models using class diagrams and object models, solution/domain architecture using component and sequence diagrams.

The communication amongst several parties using common language and using a repository.

1. Could have better reporting functions
2. Performance could be improved when the file based repository size increases
3. Would be nice if it takes excel inputs for creating a list of objects and maybe even relations.

We've used it for three and a half years.

We have had no issues with the deployment.

Stability is sometimes an issue when it comes up with synchronization errors and does not give any specific message as to the reason behind it.

Scalability becomes an issue as long as we are working on file based repository.

Customer service has been good whenever I contacted them.

I used Rational Rose for UML modeling before this. Currently, I use Software AG's ARIS for enterprise architecture and Sparx EA for information modeling and solution architecture. Sparx does not have the depth that ARIS provides but I like the flexibility and ease of use , despite its lack of reporting and import capabilities.

It was straightforward.

In-house and independent installations usually, so far.

Currently, it is only used as one of the several tools and is still being discussed about the capacity in which we should use this tool.

It depends on the scope and the level of architecture that is intended to be done. For day-to-day modeling and solutions, it is a very good repository-based tool.

Support for different modeling standards in one package allows to have one tool for many roles.

The underlying data model that supports the models allows exposing architecture data to people who don't need or want to see diagrams.

We used Sparx as a central repository for architecture models. Subsequently used on project delivery as a reference and during strategic planning.

A full SaaS version would be very helpful. Also, I would like to see more investment in Archimate notation. Right now it is still geared mostly towards UML.

I've been using it for five.

We had no issues deploying it.

In a database-server deployment there are performance/locking issues when multiple users make changes simultaneously. We had to establish processes to facilitate coordination of concurrent work.

We had no issues scaling it for our needs.

It's email only support, and they have a long turnaround.

It's very easy.

We implemented it ourselves with no major problems or delays.

Value is the key driver. The product is inexpensive and offers rich functionality. They offer concurrent licensing scheme which is very attractive from cost perspective.

In a multiuser environment, you can't really go around the need for process to control access. Otherwise the quality of information will suffer.