Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect Reviews

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.

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.

We use Sparx to design the whole enterprise architecture, from the highest level down to the physical level, and to generate those XML messages. Also, we generate the DDL for the database to support DevOps. 

In the beginning, I didn't have any training. I just wanted to try, but I spent two hours and I couldn't do anything. I clicked here, then clicked there—it didn't work. Eventually, I learned how to use it, but in the beginning, it wasn't very straightforward. Usually, because of my computer experience, I can do things by intuition. So if you do not get training, read the user manual, or Google how to use it, then it's hard to do anything. With some other tools, you can immediately do something, but I had to take some time with this one.

I like Sparx's BPM features and the way it lets you create the diagram.

I check the Gartner report pretty regularly and I see that Sparx keeps on going down in the rating. The Sparx EA needs to catch up. I believe the one reason is the strategic architecture. Also, other tools might work better for those high-level executives for whom the quality of the diagram is very important. Sometimes these little differences set a product apart. 

Almost about 10 years, I think. Yeah.

Sparx is very reliable. And it's integrated with ServiceNow via the cloud, so you can share info and store everything inside the Sparx EA. 

When many users are accessing the system at the same time, Sparx slows down. It can't easily support a large team. I'm a contractor and for my latest contract, there are 30 architects and 20 business analysts.

Sparx support isn't very responsive. 

The Sparx setup wasn't complex.

The license I use is on-premise. We haven't gone to the cloud where we have to pay monthly or something like that. Sparx is cheaper than most similar tools. 

I rate Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect nine out of 10. I recommend it, and I also go to other organizations and train their employees how to use it.

I use it to demonstrate Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) and architecture repository. I also demonstrate the document generation facility of the tool. It has got a plugin named BRC, binary enterprise architecture system integration, and I use that to show to my participants' diagram-driven architecture, gap analysis using diagrams, work package creations, and architecture roadmap creation. 

It is a desktop solution. I have purchased the desktop version.

I like it because it is very economical. Price-wise, Sparx EA is very low cost. 

It is easy to use. Connecting entities is very easy in this.

It is an EA tool that is approved by Open Group. It is in the tool register of Open Group. 

Their technical support is not good in India. I wrote to them because I had a question, but I never got an answer. So, I just left it behind.

I've been using this solution for the last three years for my class.

It is stable.

I have not used it for large projects, but I have asked Sparx people whether it can have multi-faring and configuration management, and they said yes. 

I am the main trainer of my organization, and I am the only one who is using it.

Their technical support is not good in India. It could be better. I wrote an email to the support, but I didn't get a response. I did not call them and pursue it too much because my need was not professional. My need was more education-based. It is good for my use, and I'm able to fill the time in my class with topics. 

It is easy to install. You just execute an MSF file, and it is implemented quickly. It took a maximum of three minutes.

I did it myself. I did not take the help of any technical team of Sparx EA.

It is very economical and low cost. You have to pay for a one-time license, and it is active forever.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate it a six out of 10.

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.

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 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.

My company is a leading software team. I tend to get brought in early stages for understanding and identifying problems. I look through what the customers are actually doing and I tend to move on into the system's analysis and architecture to see whether there are opportunities for interventions and gaps.

The features I find most valuable is the ability to create a document and then put it into a OneCare artifact. This feature allows me to share the visual I bring about with other communities that are not system analysts because not everyone can afford to have a copy of Enterprise Architect. 

Additionally, the solution operates well as a whole and has very comprehensive capabilities.

The areas of improvement should be focused on utility service such as producing better graphics, perhaps having a wider image library set and producing better models for working directly with customers. The solution does not provide things like shadow effect and 3D computer graphics instead of 2D.

More polishing on the presentation should be included in the next release. 

I have been using this on a regular basis for the last four years. For the additional six years, I have used the solution in intervals as I needed.

Initially, I found the stability of this solution reliable until there was an unexpected access crash leaving an LDB that prevented me from accessing my database, even after deleting the LDB file.  I had to use the previous version to solve the problem which I had to work on for two days.

I find the solution very configurable. I could go in and change the format for export. I brought products into the ArchiMate from EA and the other way around. They seemed to work because they store them as common components.

The support team have been very good at responding and coming back quickly with a query.

I previously used to work on Salamander but it did not add on what I already know. I was also recently teaching Visual Paradigm and ArchiMate.

The initial setup was straightforward to run as a single user on a single machine. There might have been an issue around installing access to the image library on the cloud environment. I think it was just a patch version that I needed to get to fix the issue.

The licence has a costly upfront fee which gets you access. You have to pay an annual maintenance fee, which is less.

I think the pricing is justified because I use it very often. 

I would certainly recommend this solution if you are a serious business or a system architect, who are modelling complex systems. You will already be aware of the product and you will know what it could do for you.

I rate Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect an eight out of ten. 

We started to build an architecture based on this tool.

We use if for enterprise architecture with multiple domains.

The most valuable feature is that it provides tuning for multiple layers of enterprise in the business application architecture. 

We can use the same tool for a different audience. It helps our enterprise architects in building their diagrams. It helps with the handling of the application architect when it comes to the development team.

It provides good utilization and it's a convenient tool for building exact architectural work.

One of the drawbacks is that it is oriented on architecture and not user-presented.

Also, one of the disadvantages is that it doesn't provide a better representation level for the readers. It is not integrated with solutions such as Confluence or Jira. This is something that is missing in this solution.

Because it is oriented on architecture, it is not convenient to use this information for the presentations to our clients.

They also have a cloud-based deployment solution and it has a bit more capability to communicate to clients and to the sales team.

I would like to see integration with Confluence or any other TRM, and the capability to integrate with the data storage, such as a repository similar to GitHub.

We have been using Sparx System Enterprise Architect for approximately 10 years.

We are using version 14 or 15.

It is difficult for us to judge the stability because it is open for us in Europe and spread between two cities, Paris and Amsterdam.

We don't have a strong demand to have a highly scalable solution for building enterprise-related activities.

We have 50 users in our organization who are using this solution.

We may be increasing our usage, as we have had many acquisitions and have more people than we need.

We are not acquainted with any other solution.

If you are talking about Enterprise Architects, the initial setup is quite simple.

We want to keep all of the information inside our own infrastructure. We have our own data centers and for now, we would like for it not to go into cloud deployment.

We had help from the vendor for the implementation.

Pricing is open information.

They have the price on their site for the enterprise version, and we do receive a small discount.

We are doing some slow research in the direction of switching to another program. For this year, it's not in the roadmap, but I will approve that for next year because we really want to consider some alternatives.

For example, solutions like LeanIX have more capabilities for integration between different levels of data representation. We can integrate the system with Confluence, and it can integrate with Jira.

We have been quite happy for a number of years, but it has several drawbacks. We are considering an alternative. We are not looking to get rid of this solution but use another product and use them both for a while.

I would rate Sparx System Enterprise Architects a seven out of ten.