Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect Reviews

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.

When I'm developing some of my applications, I collect the requirements from the customer and understand the workflows for different scenarios. I then model the workflows as the point of reference for the development team.

It allows some kind of reverse engineering, where if you have a database or some different languages, you can reverse engineer and get the diagrams, which is very helpful.

The Business Process Modeling or BPM part is the most valuable. Its ability to simulate scenarios is also very useful.

It can also create descriptions of the workflows. It has a feature in which if you create some BPMN process, a workflow diagram, and the description inside, you can actually simulate the whole scenario, and you get the description. That's very handy.

The Business Process Modeling or BPM feature can be improved to make it more interactive and user friendly because it is a tool for technical people. My current use is only for business process modeling notation and putting in the icons etc. You need to take them in as a class, which makes things very complex. Because of this complexity, it is not an easy-to-handle solution.

Enterprise Architect is not very good for mockups. We cannot create user screens and other similar kinds of stuff, which is bad. For these things, we prefer to use Axure RP and other similar solutions. They should either remove this feature from this product or provide some kind of connectivity with Axure RP so that people can do better mockups of screens and import them.

They need to augment and strengthen the BPM feature, which is the main feature. They need to put in some elements like artificial intelligence and augmented reality. They should look into such features because these things are coming up.

I started using this solution in 2003 when it was version two.

It is quite stable.

It is quite scalable. I didn't have any need to involve 30 or 40 technical business analysts or users. We had just a few users because it is used during the business analysis and design phase. Every team can use its own installation.

It is hard to access those people. You can get in touch only through email. The same problem is there with Visual Paradigm. They are also accessible only through email. I would rate their support a five out of ten.

There were two products, which were very popular initially. One was STP that was developed by people who started the object paradigm and human modeling. Rational Rose was the other one, which was taken away by IBM, and it was lost. After that, many other tools appeared.

The initial setup is straightforward. It is very easy to install.

It is really good if you want to develop workflows. It is not good for data modeling. For data modeling, Visual Paradigm is better.

I would rate Enterprise Architect a seven out of 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.

There are several ‘primary’ use case:

1: Designing a solution

2: Reverse-engineering the solution from a poorly documented code base - all too common in my 25 years of coding.

3: Communication of concepts, rules, ideas to devs, testers, dev team management

4: Importantly keeping the evolving codebase and the design ‘close-coupled’, with EA that is easy. Code evolves and sometimes the design often changes a lot - how often do devs avoid the design because it’s just way outdated?? It should be the first port of call in a bug fix - not the last.

High/Low-level Design, Test case identification. Mindmapping, functional requirements elicitation, use case elicitation, test cases, activity diagrams. I am a contract developer/designer, for me, it’s vital to get up to speed quickly with new and complex systems. I have often used my own EA license to get a handle on the real model - for me, that's been vital.

Sparx has mainly improved my organization through the communication of ideas through the sharing of models and a variety of diagramming techniques. Consistency is a key attribute of a good codebase. This tool helps a lot in the maintenance and organization of a lot of complexity.

It has led some teams to do better code reviews - to be less focussed on coding conventions (syntax) and more focussed on the semantics because of the abstraction level clear design affords.

We all know understanding is ALL - so Communication is vital, this tool makes it easy.

• Mind mapping as a top-level tool for conceptual brainstorming and identification of key concepts in the conceptual model.
• Use cases / scenarios / activity diagram generation
• The fact that it’s very easy to create child diagrams in diagrams and so keep each diagram clear, focussed, and not bloated. This is very important and a powerful aid in clarifying the model
• Easy forward and reverse engineering - to code and DB design/implementation is an iterative process so there is a real use case for a tool like EA to make the update process very easy
• It's possible to write stored procedures in the EA SQL database to extract steps that can be used as code comments to structure the code directly from activity diagrams. This is something I find really useful to speed up the coding and keep it aligned with the low-level design.
• There are some powerful ideas code generation templates and transforms. Sparx has made the EA object model available so you can add your own popup menu items etc. It is very customizable for the power user.

It is a good affordable that is actively evolving, I think the modeling of activity diagrams could be optimized - currently, they insist on you specifying whether a connector is a control flow or an object flow for instance. It is a minor point, but since this sort of diagram is popular in that it affords both the chance to effectively constrain the model whilst leaving freedom for the next stage in the dev process - which key in good design then it should a high priority to optimize this rather than waste resources unnecessary 'bells and whistles'?

There are several little things they could and should optimize. But the platform is good and could be the base a whole tranch or really useful features. for example: to be able to easily run code set up in unit tests to reverse engineer specific code blocks to yield sequence/activity diagrams, would be really useful when as a contractor you have to 'firefight' the design from the code. 

Personally I would like to see the database normalized better. It's really just a data dump whose business rules are contained in the front end client code - it is way way way off 3nf.

Because its easy to create diagrams one needs to be vigilant on the housekeeping of orphaned fragments - I have written my own scripts to do this, may they are available now.

I don't make much use of the traceability Matrix, yet that should be a feature that I should use if I could see it made it easy to ensure the traceability of ALL the design to the code (completeness)

However, it works. It’s good to use and it’s affordable for a single contractor. It has REALLY helped me. It is a good product and I am sure it will only continue to improve.

I have been using Sparx for ten years. 

IBM Rational, but not many companies could afford it.

Pricing is an obvious selling point and so are the flexibility and feature set.

At the time I first used it it was a no brainer, there was only Sparx out there as affordable and serious software - there was Visio. Now there are real alternatives.

It supports a variety of databases - if you have more than say 5 do not use access. Maybe it is better now but it did cause us problems when 30 devs were using it.

Access DB is ideal for the single user or very small team because its a file-based repo which is easy to back up as part of the project back up at my home-based office I use both Access and MSSQL repos - you can migrate - but its not a simple exercise. I guess if you did it a lot you would have a well-documeted process - i.e picking the wrong driver is/was possible and it will give you an incomplete/corrupt migration. That being said I do do it because I like to get at the SQL repo directly. 

EA and SA Diagramming

Allowed us to validate design changes and give an indication of the code before even speaking with developers. It also allowed the architects to reuse work done by other projects or by other architecture specialities. It is more structured than tools like Visio making it easier to build accurate diagrams.

• Ability to manage a meta-model that support a single source of truth for models
• Ability to capture concept thinking diagrams (referred to as white boarding)
• Reverse engineering capabilities
• Collaborative functionality
• Ability to trace through from a requirement statement to impacted logic was extremely powerful to us

Collaborating on a medium to large model resulted in significant performance problems, in some cases critical issues. It did not include sufficient flexibility for architecture work targeting business stakeholders. Very much a tool focused at application architecture despite having functions covering higher architecture domains.

I've been using it for eight years in total, and five on a daily basis.

We have had some stability issues but these varied version by version.

The scalability issues limit us from expanding the use of the tool.

Initially this was excellent in early versions. The growth of the product has changed as the company has grown. We were not able to get resolution to scalability issues in reasonable timeframes for versions nine or 10.

IBM's tools and a number of other tools primarily UML focused. In v7 Sparx was miles ahead of the competition, fast, flexible, priced affordable.

It was straightforward for single use, but for collaborative use it is slightly more complicated.

In house team. If you're thinking of scaling it up I would recommend linking the commitment to pay for the product to demonstration of the tools ability to support the team size and use you are proposing and ensure contracts are in place with tight SLAs if issues occur.

It's impossible to tell, as the tool has helped to swing decision making in a few high level business meetings but mostly considered a tool to improve the efficiency of architecture.

The current market landscape is changing. The recent work I've done with Orbus IServer to be a serious contender. Other tools now exist like LeanIX as cheaper solutions but SaaS based.

Be realistic about what you team can achieve. In a single use situation there is little advise needed but if you are intending to deliver it into an organisation, ensure that

• The way it will change how you work is possible (considering people and processes)
• The cost is reasonable
• The competition has been assessed using a POC not marketing ware (e.g. Orbus)
• The training impact is understood (The tool is not trival to use)
• The business view is not ignored. In my experience this tool does not remove the need to render information for a business audience separately and neither does tools like Orbus.

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. 

We use it mainly for enterprise and business architecture including application landscape and interface landscape. In some instances, we use it for business processes and roadmapping. 

I am not a big fan of using Sparx. The interface is not user-friendly and is outdated. For example, it is not possible to only open a view you've created or to open one project at a time instead of the entire package.

I'm not looking into expanding the use of Enterprise Architect, but I'm looking into replacing it.

It has been a useful tool for modeling and testing automated processes. 

It would be beneficial to incorporate features like document management usage of video models or PowerPoint visuals that you can import and easily use, instead of having to buy extended modules. When collaborating with other people, it needs to be more user-friendly. I cannot get businesses to use enterprise architect as it is too complicated for them. 

Our organization has used this solution for three years. 

The stability of this solution depends on the availability of the license server. If this connection is set up properly, the stability is okay. It does take a long time to load model projects.

It was straightforward. It involved connecting to the license server and deploying the solution. 

It was deployed within two weeks.

We purchased it once off for 1200 euros. If we want to build integrations with other systems such as Word or SharePoint, we would need to pay approximately 300 euros for this. 

Sparx is a good tool for extended usage such as modeling or automated testing. It allows you to do good testing upfront. If the only intention is to use it for architecture modeling and visuals, it may not be the best solution. 

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.