Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect Reviews

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.

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.

We are building it right now. We first have to build a repository and the tool, and then we have to develop the training for different types of users. We are using its latest version.

Its ease of use and the breadth of the toolkit are most valuable. It has an incredible repository of artifacts to work with, and they're all cross-referenced. 

It works with a whole bunch of different standards. It works with BPMN, which is Business Process Modeling Notation, and it also works with something called TOGAF, which is the Open Group Architecture Foundation. There are different layers when you're dealing with architecture. There is the user interface, application, data, data servers, and all that kind of stuff. You have the infrastructure, hardware, and software layers, and then you have the application and business capability layers. You can model a business process and decompose it into all of the applications, data, and hardware to support it.

They should make the Save button easier to find. 

A simplified user interface for a lighter user would probably be useful. I am not sure if such an interface is already there.

I have been using this solution for six months.

It is very stable.

It is scalable. Right now, we've only got a hundred books, but we want to have hundreds of thousands of books. There are only three of us using it in our architecture group, and then there are probably 30 other architects in other parts of the company who are using it.

My colleague is dealing with technical support. 

One of my colleagues did that. I am not familiar with the setup, but I know it is pretty elaborate because, like anything, you got to configure it the way you want. The more robust the tool, the more configuration it usually needs.

In terms of the software solution, it doesn't take a lot of maintenance. It is like building out a library.

I would advise others to understand their needs and find a tool that really meets their needs.

I would rate Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect an eight out of ten. It is a very strong tool, but I don't have enough comparison points to give it a higher rating.

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.

We're still investigating it on the structural side. Our primary focus is on CCML and UML, the creation of documents, and requirement management. After that, we will teach our company about how we're going to use the product. I am using its latest version. It is deployed on-premises on the company cloud.

It is a very flexible product. It can do a lot. It is also a reliable product. 

I would like it to be less of a general tool. Currently, it is not a Swiss army knife that can do everything. It is not specialized for our purposes. We are a civil engineering company. We build things. We work mostly in what is known as Infra world in the Netherlands, which comprises objects such as bridges, locks, and water management. We would like to see more focus on such types of projects. It would be nice if it has more specializations. At the moment, it is very generic, and you have to create everything yourself. 

Our focus is more on user requirement management, which is currently very basic. I would like to see a lot more functionality in this area. Its basic functions for adding user requirements are perfect, but we need more features. Currently, it has limited possibilities for our requirements. I would also like to see better contract management and have it managed in a certain way. 

I have been using this solution for a year.

It is very stable. I've had no problems or issues.

I'm using a database-based client of Enterprise Architect, and it is very scalable. 

We are testing it at the moment. I am working with four or five people in that area. After we have enough confidence in the product and we have a new project, we would most likely roll it out to a hundred plus people. There are two projects that are currently using Enterprise Architect within the company. One of them already has more than 100 users. The company I work for has 30,000 employees. It will be used by quite a lot of people.

In the Netherlands, the support for this solution is very limited. You have to rely on some consultants, but at the moment, the knowledge of these consultants is also quite limited. They quote a quite high price for their knowledge, but the impression that we get is that they're learning on the job. They call themselves specialists, but they're not really specialists. When I look at other countries, particularly the United States, the consultants are a lot more knowledgeable, and they know more about the product. We don't have that in the Netherlands.

I have tried different packages. VCL is a very well-known package, which can also generate code to a certain extent and create documents, but it is limited. I have used a number of open-source tools, such as Star UML. There are a lot of different packages that are good in a certain area, but you can't combine things very easily. They require a lot of work and a lot of people to collect the information by using Excel tables or databases.

We are also looking at another tool that is very much focused on CCML, which makes it limited. It is certainly not as flexible as Enterprise Architect. We also have to look at the knowledge of the engineers working on the project, and most of them are not software engineers. They have a background in civil engineering. Enterprise Architect is certainly a product with potential, and we would like to introduce it, but it is very difficult to implement it in our project. Most likely, a few users will use Enterprise Architect. The remaining users would continue to use Word or Office products to create their documents, and a few will add the required information to the model.

Overall, I would rate Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect an eight out of ten. If I was rating it specifically for our business, I would rate it a five out of ten. It is very difficult to use it in our company. It is a good product, but it is difficult to implement in a non-software company.