Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect Reviews

I have used the solution for BPMN Modeling for a German Bank where regulatory processes were required to model for around 24 countries. After process modeling, process harmonization, process standardization was also included. SPARX EA, with a variety of notations and custom attributes, helped track the process delivery for each center smoothly. 

We have also created application, information, and data models linked them with BPMN process models. So net-net, process modeling, process improvement, and process optimization were the primary use cases.

We could capture the process models around 24 countries with all their local variations. After process modeling, we have depicted the similarities and differences in SAPRX for process harmonization, process standardization. 

SPARX EA, with a variety of notations and custom attributes, helped track the process delivery for each center smoothly. We have also created applications, information, and data models linked with BPMN process models. 

SPARX EA is well suited for a client that does not have an Enterprise Architecture or Business Process and that needs to get started, so you can leverage the product right from scratch. You can import from Word and Excel. That is the best feature. The information is available in Excel and you can get started by importing the artifacts in the proper structure. Word documents can also be imported by using the proper plugins. It can be used as a jump-start for a team of five people that can share a common repository. This import/export reduced a lot of licensing requirements too.

When the model is large, it is a bit slow to render. Also sometimes it is difficult (selecting and holding it) to move a single attribute from one entity in the diagram to another. At times check-in and check-out procedures are slow. 

Navigating from EA Models to Business Process Models becomes a nightmare if the repository is heavily loaded. I have worked on some other tools which work pretty well in this area. SPARX Systems should consider improving on this point in their upcoming releases.

I have used the product for around two years.

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.

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.

The primary use cases are electronic signature design. The electronic signature is typically the NETLOCK, and the electric number is a secret, so it's the NETLOCK electronic signature.

The solution is deployed on-premises.

The advantages of Enterprise are that it's cheaper and much more practical than MagicDraw.

The model integrity is not the same as MagicDraw, so MagicDraw is a bit better as a tool.

The integration could be improved.

I have been using this solution for one year, but I don't use Enterprise Architect on a daily basis.

The solution is stable. It doesn't require any specific maintenance.

It's scalable.

I have also used MagicDraw. We changed from MagicDraw to Enterprise Architect because the client has Enterprise Architect, and we have tried to export all the delivery products to the Enterprise Architect, and more or less, it should be possible.

My understanding is that setup is easier than MagicDraw.

We had a yearly license.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10. 

That tool is still alive. We recognize that 10 years back, it was the same product, and at the moment it seems to be still alive. That means the background of the product is okay, and it can be in life for the next 10 years.

Our customers are using Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect for enterprise architecture modeling, where interrelationship among different enterprise entities.

Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is very flexible and it is simple to define the metamodel. Additionally, it is lightweight on resources.

The solution could improve by having more aggressive working sessions with other product vendors. It would be a benefit to have demo sessions where users of the solution can ask questions to product experts and receive answers. For example, people who are struggling with the initial setup.

The team setup is very crucial for the success of a tool like this. I don't know if we looked into it properly. However, if some part of it, such as user setup can be automated, then it would be great for adoption.

In a future release, they should improve portfolio planning.

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

The solution is stable.

The scalability is fairly good. However, I do not have, for example, 100 users to be able to fully determine the scalability.

In my organization, we have the chief, enterprise, architect, infrastructure, and security architect that are supposed to use the solution. However, only one or two people are using it at this time.

We are pushing for evolving tools but I am not sure if we are going to increase the usage.

I have never used technical support.

We were using other solutions and we switched to Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect because it is lightweight, simple to use, and inexpensive.

The initial setup is easy to do. However, with the implementation, people struggle with how multiple people can work in a collaborative structure. That doesn't come easily. You have to define many things. There is room for improvement because people do not understand the solution.

The solution is not fully deployed but individual people are using it. The beauty of enterprise modeling tools is to collaborate into a single workspace. A single workspace means a single model where everything is interrelated. People have traceability.

If you are using Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect as an individual contributor, then it's not a great choice. It's not implemented in the current organization effectively. If Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect can provide demonstrations or a checklist it would be very useful.

We do not have a separate team that manages the solution. We all manage the solution.

Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is priced well. The price we pay is approximately $20 per month. Other solutions I have found to be much more expensive.

We evaluated other solutions before choosing Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect. Most of the other solutions had very big footprints and were very heavy tools. Our use cases were mostly related to EA modeling. For that, this tool was good.

The customer that is using this solution has not implemented it in the right way, but they are expected to. It's not fully utilized. If you start putting the model together, it's definitely a great thing to improve the overall ecosystem. If you put tools, such as Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect everything is always up to date.

If we will have this fully implemented, our productivity will increase. Since I work as an architect, most of the time we spend understanding as-is state and current state. If somebody is utilizing this solution, you don't need to spend a lot of time. You will always have an up-to-date depiction of the current state.

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

There are other use cases that cover enterprise architecture, which is not part of the tools. This tool does what it is built for, which is modeling the enterprise architecture. I gave the seven ratings based on the overall ecosystem which is required.

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)

We primarily use the solution for modeling. We've tried to map a set of fields and we have and combined it with the processes of the company.

We wanted something that included all of the shapes represented in the software architecture solutions of our company. We created near 2,000 products that we have in the company. We used this product, as well as HOPEX, which we also bought, to represent the software architecture of our solutions and the mapping within the processes of the company.

If you compare the price of MEGA HOPEX with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, Sparx is cheaper.

It's a very practical solution. You don't need to do an advanced course to start using this tool.

It offers great intricacy. You can really do many kinds of models. You don't have to design certain designs in another tool. It even allows enterprise architecture to be modeled within it. 

The solution is very user-friendly. When you draw a diagram to model the architecture, it's very flexible. If you have a double standard, you can use the tool. You can use UML Ultimate if you like. If you have a different set of standards for certain models, you can put those in. 

The documentation and the articles they have on offer are pretty decent.

Sparx can be a bit slow. If you are trying to design software architecture, sometimes we run into issues and need to refresh. HOPEX also occasionally needs to be refreshed as well, actually.

The product has a unified view or a unified database with some limited functionality in the models. In the same database, it can create some problems. I don't know if the problem is that maybe there is a communication issue or we just have too many models in the company. When we're starting the scaling it started to become less capable. We've had trouble with access on the corporate usage level.

We started using this solution around 2018 or 2019. It's been a few years at this point.

I'm not sure how well this product can scale. We have a lot of models and it seems we have reached our limit. 

The solution does seem to offer helpful documentation. 

We are using both Sparx Systems and MEGA HOPEX. Our organization bought both solutions. 

Sparx is less expensive than, for example, HOPEX. 

We have a server license for the product.

We work with both Sparx and HOPEX, and therefore we can easily compare them. Sparx, for example, is less expensive. However, it can run slow sometimes and needs to be refreshed. HOPEX sometimes has the same issue in terms of needing an occasional refresh.

We find Sparx to be more useable as well. It's less technical.

We are customers and end-users. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We are very happy with the product overall. 

We use the product to design and develop databases, leveraging its features to create robust database models.

The product's most valuable features are the database design and development capabilities. These features are adequate for my needs, allowing me to create detailed and efficient database models.

The product could be improved in terms of its ease of use and documentation. While it offers a lot of functionality, it can be difficult to grasp how to utilize these features effectively.

I have been using Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect for over five years. 

The platform is stable and reliable.

My experience with customer service and support has been positive. They generally respond within a reasonable time when I have questions or issues.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward.

The pricing is reasonable, with the ultimate version costing around 290 Euros for renewal and the initial purchase around 600 Euros. There are no additional costs for maintenance or support, as these are included.

I would recommend this solution for those who work in diverse environments and need a versatile tool.

I rate it a seven.