Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect Reviews

I use Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect (EA) in many situations where I need to structure thoughts. Primarily, it is an EA tool. I use it when I have projects where I am in the Architect role. Modeling systems in EA is far superior to doing it in Excel or Word documents. Especially in Software Development projects, it is a neat feature that you can create code from UML-Models and that you can import source code and EA creates classes from the code.

I use it on a fast Workstation in diverse modeling situations within Enterprise Architecture, but also Software Architecture projects. 

Sparx EA is a good tool to model any system on. It is based on UML, but it provides the ability to create your own metamodels, so you can implement/model anything.

The tool comes in the Ultimate version with tons of predefined perspectives which are suited for plain UML, Strategy, Structured Analysis, Requirements, Database, and Enterprise Architecture Modelling to name just a few.

It is possible to mind map and wireframe and also to create roadmap diagrams. That said, to be honest, some of these diagrams could be improved.

The best thing about the tool is that its database is open. It provides an integrated scripting framework for automation and it can be automated via COM with Delphi, Visual Basic, C++, or any other programming language capable to do COM automation. It is also possible to develop your own add-ons, so the tool is very well suited as a basis for your company-wide Enterprise Architecture tooling. You can integrate data from web applications or specialized FAT clients which you develop for Enterprise Architecture Management requirements.

The tool is, to some extent, clumsy and in some areas slow (especially on mid or low-performance workstations). 

Quite a lot of data entry would be very tedious if you could not develop your own automation or data entry tooling (or have it developed for you).

The automatic creation of reports based on the model elements could be improved and overall the diagrams could be more beautiful (or more visually appealing content could be added) to the toolbox. The wireframing support could also be improved and the roadmap capability is not ideal.

We've used the solution for approximately 5 years.

DB connections can hang, however, that might not be the product's fault. The product was developed ages ago and it rarely has a hickup. Almost never.

The scalability is fair. If you are a mega-corporation (like worldwide and hundreds of thousands of configuration items), it boils down to the sizing of the DBserver on which the model is hosted. I've already worked with quite big model repositories and at some point, you might need to partition into different repositories and consolidate whatever you need a unified view on, but if you are willing to treat Sparx EA as the focal tool within a partly self-developed framework of architecture tools you are good to go.

I know some of the other web-based solutions - but not as good as Sparx EA. For UML modeling, I used (since 2000) Modelmaker which could create C# and Delphi code (which was sadly discontinued). First, I moved to Sparx because Modelmaker was discontinued, but as my projects shifted more and more from Software Development to Enterprise Architecture, it was a better-suited tool for the challenges I faced. 

The initial setup is not really easy. Especially if you use the cloud server. You need to set up a licensed server, and, if you work on a relational database (which is recommended for large repositories and necessary if you want to collaborate on models), you need to have some DB knowledge (DBMS Based Repositories For Enterprise Architect | Sparx Systems)

We handled everything in-house. 

I cannot really tell if we've seen an ROI. It is more that the quality of my work is much better and that I have a more pleasant experience working with it. It would take much effort to really calculate an ROI on this. It really is pretty cheap and you only pay the maintenance renewal, so it is worth every dime.

The tool has a lot of "bang for your buck" - especially if you can develop extensions yourself it has an unmatched price/performance ratio. That said, beware that you really need to become an expert in the tool or hire one to leverage the benefits of the tool.

I did not evaluate other solutions. I heard of Sparx EA to be one of the best - even though it is a challenging tool - and that is why I took it.

Go for it. Whichever team in your company that will integrate the tool into your Enterprise Architecture Management toolchain should read the books from Thomas Kilian (leanpub.com)

My job is about helping the organization to create a functional solution. I build models for the organization at the business layer, application layer, etc. It also involves integration with other tools, such as erwin, for data modeling.

Its traversability is most valuable. I can use ArchiMate, and I can create a UML model. ArchiMate is for logical enterprise architecture, UML is for software engineering, and BPMN is for business processes. I can build it to have multiple models, and they are also traversable, which is not something that every tool allows. If there is a huge organization, you can segment it and have separate models for business technology or internal resource management system. You don't need to keep them in one model, and you can decide to segregate them.

Its model-centric approach makes it very easy to create documentation based on a template. Every company says that maintaining documentation is a very tedious task, and it usually requires subject matter experts. That's why companies rarely maintain documentation, but when you maintain the model, and you have the right processes and the right roles assigned, it can be naturally maintained. You can just simply produce a document by selecting whatever you need and in a format that you need. It is a very powerful feature.

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.

For example, you can do many things with ArchiMate, which is modeling language, but people can interpret many things incorrectly. They start modeling and then realize that it is not a good idea. So, it is not the tool itself. It is probably a combination of the modeling language and the tool that validates it. It would be very good if validation mechanics are embedded in the tool to, at least, advise people that a particular thing is allowed to be done in this way, but doing it would also mean something else that you may not want. The languages themselves are not perfect. In a large company, you have many people doing the modeling. If they interpret things differently and the tool allows them to do that, then you would have to do some rework.

I have been in and out. I have probably been using this solution for seven or eight years.

When I use it, it is stable. I do not have any problems. I really love the tool, and I have friends who work with this. They simply admire it. So, it is very popular in this area.

I didn't use their tech support much.

I tried to build a design with another solution two or three years ago, but there was something wrong and it was very slow. It was called Business Design. So, basically, I just said that I cannot use it for the scale of the task that I have. I simply cannot use that tool. They could maybe tune it up. I'm not blaming the tool itself, but my experience with it was really negative. I expect that the Sparx program will be faster.

I am asking my IT to install version 15 on my laptop. I have submitted a request, and I want to have it set up and then try it. I will play with this a little bit and figure it out.

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.

Currently, I am using a different tool, which is open-source, because the company didn't want to pay. It looks like they have changed their mind, and I have now started looking into the tool. I will also be looking at other cloud-based tools, including Sparx. We haven't yet made a decision. We will compare all the options, and Sparx has very good chances. We are quite positive about it, but there is also competition.

My task right now is to create a model for the entire organization with thousands of NMLs and tens of thousands of relationships. It is very big, so the speed of the process in it is very important. My superiors are thinking about a cloud version because they don't really want to maintain it. They're talking about something like DevOps so that in the development, they have the continuous promotion of the code, automated testing, etc. We are not building the executable code. If you look into a modeling language, it is a language. It is not a programming language, but it comes under the same category as the programming language. For many people, it is much easier to understand than Enterprise Architect. They try to stay away because of the complexity.

I would rate Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect an eight out of 10. My experience is a little bit outdated, but I was very pleased with it.

I use it for enterprise architecture.

It helps in centralizing data or putting our data in one place.

Artifact templates are most valuable.

It can be improved in the area of shared documentation. The idea is that the architecture tool can call back to an enterprise asset, pull that information, and link that as a sub-artifact.

Shared environments are a little bit tricky. Looking at it from an enterprise perspective, there should be a much better shared environment. I've got multiple people in different business units. Once I model an object, others should be able to reuse that same object multiple times. Currently, it's a lengthy process to set that up from scratch.

I last used it six weeks ago. Before that, I used it for about a year.

It is stable.

It is scalable. We have a really small team. I've got three licenses that we're using, and it's all on the desktops.

I haven't yet interacted with them.

We used to use MagicDraw, and the switch was due to cost. MagicDraw was about $32,000.

Its initial setup was straightforward. In terms of the implementation strategy, our organization doesn't have a lot of architects. This is the beginning of doing this the proper way. There is not really a plan in place. We have just put the software in place, and I have started to collect information and put it into the tool.

I've installed it on a local machine. We could also install it on the server. It has fairly low complexity. It comes with the binary. You just install it.

We implemented it ourselves. We had only one person for this.

We have not yet seen an ROI. It's too early.

It's affordable. The only additional cost that we haven't yet figured out is the floating license. If you buy a floating license, you have to have a license management server, which comes at an additional cost that's not discussed. So, we haven't yet used the floating license. That’s because I haven't had a chance to figure that out.

I had a long list. I had about 15 different enterprise-grade architecture tools. I got a bunch of them off the PeerSpot site.

When using this product in a shared environment, in terms of multiple different aspects of the business, it's not really tied together well at the top or out of the box. It takes some configuration. So, you need to understand how to use shared resources to build architecture so that if you are doing architecture on one object inside the enterprise, somebody else should be able to recreate it independently. What you do should be available to those who need to model it. 

I would rate it a seven out of ten.

We use it for model-based system engineering (MBSE).

I think having some of the profiles and ready-made templates is an extremely helpful feature. This is one of the biggest features that I find very useful in Sparx.

The documentation and the help center within the tool are very helpful as well. They are written in much simpler terms. The examples are very clear, and the video tutorials are there. You can find a lot of video tutorials that can definitely help you to understand how to do certain tasks that you want to accomplish in Sparx.

I think it's very stable and scalable as well. It is also an affordable solution.

The UI is a little bit outdated. It should be more fresh and clean.

The other thing that I would really love to see improve is the roadmap capabilities. They advertise that you can use Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect to do roadmapping, but I don't think that this is really accurate because the roadmapping capabilities are very basic and you can't really do a lot with them.

Also, the Veeva Forms Management capabilities, which are built-in, could be improved. They are okay, but they could be much better as well.

I would love to see more emphasis on Agile product development within the tool itself. So, if I am managing an Agile project or a scrum project, I would love to be able to plan my sprints within the tool and manage user stories, use cases, and test cases within the tool itself without the need to use any other tool.

I've been using Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect for approximately two years now.

It is a very stable product.

It is a scalable solution, and we currently have three system architects who use it.

We hope to increase usage in the future. We are a consulting company, and if we got a project that required the use of any of the features available in Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, then it would be the tool that we will be using.

We used MagicDraw and switched to Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect because it has a better UI and also has profiles and ready-made templates.

The initial setup was very straightforward; very easy. It took a very short amount of time, and we were able to have things up and running in less than a day.

I implemented it myself.

We absolutely feel that Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect provides a good ROI.

We have an annual license, and it's very affordable.

It's a very good starting point and a very affordable solution with a lot of features. I would rate it at nine on a scale from one to ten.

Enterprise architecture: Capabilities and business services modeling, business processes mapping and analysis, project prioritization and planning (using ArchiMate and BPMN notations); 

Information architecture: Business information model (Information Entities modeling and Security Classification of entities (Availability, Integrity, Confidentiality)  (using UML notation and specific TAG values);

Solution architecture: Conceptual components architecture (using ArchiMate or UML notation);

Integration of all models in a central collaborative with multi-users, multi-domains, and a multileveled architecture repository structured and organized following the TOGAF 9.x Content model.

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.

Having the possibility of integrating and sharing all architecture models inside a centralized repository for all architecture stakeholders provides immense and cohesive insight into all architecture domains and dimension interrelationships. 

The capability to analyze interdependencies between architectural elements makes for a very reliable comprehension of all architectural interactions, as opposed to trying to figure it out from a pile of Visio and PowerPoints (or any other diagramming tool) independent documents.

The product offers very good support for all mainstream modeling notations and architectural frameworks. It has a very complete and coherent environment for business, architecture, and solution modeling. If what you need is not directly available, you can extend the modelings capabilities to suit your specials needs (TAG values, metamodel extensions (MDG), scripting, API interfaces, ...).

It has a very stable and performant environment. This a necessary capability for supporting a large number and varied kinds of modelers (Business architects & Business analysts, Enterprise architects, Information architects, Domain & Solution Architects, Security Architects, ...), all working at the same time on shared and live models. 

The constant evolution of usability and integration capabilities: Nothing is perfect, but constant polishing and enhancement are reassuring. 

Even if there are web-based tools in the Enterprise Architecture tool ecosystem (like Prolaborate), the main modeling application is still a fat client application. For some organizations, it is still a concern and a significant disqualification criterion for adoption.

The capability to model and analyze while maintaining coherent traceability within different variants (variations or versions) of a future architecture has been greatly enhanced in the recent versions of Enterprise Architect. It requires a very mature, systemic, and methodic approach that is not easy to grasp for junior modelers. 

I have been using Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect for eight years.

In eight years of enterprise-wide modeling with multiple architects and business analysts working day-in-day-out with the environment, we have never had a single major problem and we never lost integrity.

The tool is very robust but assuring complete integrity over time requires competent quality control.

Enterprise Architect is a very flexible and scalable tool. It can be set-up different ways to accommodate capacity, volume, and a number of simultaneous modeling users. 

Almost never have to go through customer service/technical support but, the few times I needed it, they were very responsive and supportive. 

In different contexts and organizations, I have tried and used different modeling tools. That said, when I have the choice of tool to use for architecture modeling I always select Enterprise Architect for its usability (even though it is a complex tool), completeness, and extensibility.

It is usually very simple and straightforward. The real work is setting the standard for collaborative work between teams and projects.

For Enterprise Architect, it is usually very simple and I do it myself easily.

For efficient integration with other tools, I usually suggest going through a vendor team.

It was not measured recently, but being able to analyze traceability and architectural dependencies doing impact analysis has tremendous value. 

Avoiding multiple duplicated elements and being coherent and avoiding confusion about naming or modeling notations from different models or symbols from different modeling tool is very reassuring.

Define your immediate needs and objectives, start small and focused.

Identify some motivated champions inside your organization and find a coach to help them get to know the tools. 

Initially, get comfortable and efficient with the vanilla setup of the tool. Do not try to personalize or extend the tool unless you are confident that it will bring more benefits than confusion. 

Define templates and model examples to set the organizational standards for modeling. Evaluate your progress, adhesion to standards, and quality of models regularly. 

Identify other domains of modeling opportunities that could bring benefits to your organization. With experts and senior architects define a mid/long term vision and costs benefits for integrating all aspects of modeling that are important to you over time.

Annually, revised your mid/long term vision.

In my career, I was involved in many modeling tool selection exercises in many organizations and had the chance to compare most of the available tools on the market (Rational Rose, RSM, RSA, IBM RDA, CaseWise, Mega, Aris, ...). To date, I haven't the opportunity to try and evaluate BiZZdesign.

Hang around in the user's community to gain a perspective of what others do and don't do.

Architecture Design (component, deployment), Reference Architecture (enterprise, technology) and Solution Management (external artifacts) accessible globally to all of IT via AWS cloud.

Improved cross-functional team collaboration. Dynamic visual activity models improved communication and understanding with the business. Shared repository enabled reuse of model elements by users. Established a well-defined structure to manage whole solutions. Ability to ingest external document artifacts became a viable alternative to SharePoint. UML based modeling enable model-first approach in lieu of document-first approach to solutioning (alternative to Microsoft Office - Word, Excel, Visio, Powerpoint) 

Version 14 menu organization is much better. Ability to ingest external artifacts with added metadata coupled with UML based modeling is moving the organization to a more digital way of working while preserving legacy artifacts.

A better deployment model for the enterprise without relying on HKEY_CURRENT_USER in the registry.

Very stable. Rarely a crash.

In general, performance and scalability is solid. There are times when communication to the shared repository in AWS would be inconsistent, but I think that was due to the corporate network connection

Customer service / technical support is via email only so is constrained to 24 hour turnaround. Otherwise good responses. 

The Solution Architect team used a combination of Visio (UML), Word (Document Templates), Excel (Requirements) and SharePoint (Repository). Sparx replaced all of this while retaining all of the prior tool features and enabled cross-functional team collaboration for solutioning.

There was a learning curve to deployment constrained by needing to install as the user until we figured out how to deploy using MSI scripts, elevated privileges and a standard REGEDIT file containing a Sparx configuration.

Implementation using in-house team.

We gained 10 - 20 percent improvement to productivity (measured by time to complete solution) and improved quality (measured by reviews)

Setup a shared RDBMS repository (SQL, Oracle, etc.), acquire shared license keys and deploy using MSI scripts.

Considered Visio Professional (has a repository), ArchiMate (too high-level), Rational (too costly)

Establish best practices for solutioning including standardized stereotypes. Drive adoption using a hybrid approach of modeling and ingesting external documents since not everyone will learn to model equally using UML.

We put the solution on all of our systems. We've got about 200 systems on it, however, it's not all documented yet. We have about a third of all of our systems covered. There are likely 5,000 users that need to be covered.

The pricing of the solution is pretty good. It's reasonable. 

Overall, It works pretty well.

It's easy to create all diagrams.

It's easy to search within the solution. 

It's very good software. 

There was some sort of glitch within the last version. Everything is in French and I tried to use English. It didn't work so well.

The window froze for five or ten seconds. You can click and click again and it takes a second to come up. It might have been specific to a version. 

I've used the solution for about two years at this point. It's been a while. 

We have a team of about 20 that work with this product.

I wasn't part of the initial implementation. I can't speak to how difficult or complex the setup actually was.

The solution is reasonably priced and not overly expensive.

I haven't had a chance to compare this solution to other products. For us, it works pretty well and we haven't had to look elsewhere for similar solutions. 

I'm a functional architect.

I'm not sure whether or not our company has a business relationship with Sparx or if we are just customers. 

We don't use the product for generic cogeneration. We don't use it yet for that, however, in the future, we might.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We're mostly satisfied with the capabilities of the product.

Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is used by our architects to put out artifacts, collaborate, work together, and share those artifacts. The product is used to maintain the versions of architectural diagrams, use case diagrams, etc.

I'd like Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect to be more stable, and have a more improved performance. It should also have a sharing feature and allow us to easily share artifacts with our business partners, rather than requiring them to install the product on their site first. If people who don't have licenses could also view what we're sharing, that would be great.

I've used Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect for the past 10 years.

This product should be more stable.

The cloud version of Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is scalable, without a doubt.

I'm satisfied with the technical support for Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect.

The initial setup for this product was slightly complicated. It was complicated for the business users, the non-IT teams, and the non-technical teams, but I was able to do the setup myself.

We pay for the license of Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, and it is a yearly subscription.

I evaluated Visio. I use it in parallel with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect.

I used Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect on-premises at the start, then later on for other clients, I used it on cloud. I used the latest version on cloud, but for the on-premises deployment, I used an earlier version, but I don't remember the version number.

There is a learning curve with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, e.g. to be comfortable and to start using it full-fledged. It took me a month of practice.

On average, we have 50 users of this product, and 20 technical people in charge of its deployment.

I can recommend Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect to other people who may want to start implementing it.

My rating for Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is eight out of ten.