Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect Reviews

I am using Sparx for narrow purposes. I am not doing any exports and am mostly designing in the Model pipe in ArchiMate. 

My skills are not widespread.

ArchiMate is a good feature. 

This is a useful tool for IT people who need to design their solution architecture.

There are other features that would be good for Architecture.

The interface is not as fancy as it is in some other software solutions. 

Some of the features may be fine but I prefer a different type of interface.

Sometimes, it's difficult to read the text when you are presenting. The text is not very large or easy to read. It needs a zooming option. 

The user interface could be better, it needs improvement.

This solution has some limitations from a business perspective.

In the next release, I would like to see multi-language support.

I have been using this solution for one year.

We are using version 15. Currently, the latest version is 16.

Technical support is fine. 

I spoke with someone from Australia and they responded and tried to resolve the issues.

They spoke of the features and the plan to resolve the issues but didn't really acknowledge my suggestions on how to improve the user interface and make it better for the users.

Previously with another company, I was using ARIS.

Enterprise Architect is strong for them. UML is a very good solution for its purpose.

They were able to generate the codes. They were presenting me with the ability to transform BPMN to BPAL notations, convert, and then somehow enrich the BPAL notation to create an executable code from that. It's a useful tool for coding.

To my knowledge, we plan to continue the usage of this solution. It is the decision of the company and they have decided to continue using this product for specific purposes.

My recommendation for this product really depends on the purpose. I am more on the business side, and for business purposes, this product has some limitations. 

The user experience and presenting it is challenging. This solution is not fancy, as in other products. However, it is a useful tool for IT people who need to design their solution architecture. 

It depends on the purpose and orientation of the designer. 

If the designer is IT, it's good because I have heard it from many people with an IT background that this is a kind of baseline that they need to use for UML design, and also for details and for architecture, is good.

This is also good for Enterprise Architecture because it has ArchiMate. While there are many good features, there are better ones available in the market.

I have only read about them, so I cannot accurately compare.

It is difficult to rate this product, as everything has a purpose. If for example, I was in IT, I would rate it a nine out of ten, but from the business side, for me, I would rate it a four out of ten.

As an overall general rating, I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We are using this solution for data modeling, data warehouses. We build the data models in the tool.

We are creating models, and working on workflows for creating the data models. There will be other teams that will change or modify them.

We are looking to have a process where other teams can change the data models and then their changes will be reviewed by the owners. Those are the workflows we are looking to link by using Sparx.

It is a very rich tool in terms of the functionality and the types of diagrams that you can create in this tool.

It gives us many options to create many other types of diagrams.

For data modeling, it is not very mature when comparing with other data modeling tools.

In terms of the workflows, we were initially thinking of having something automated where you have the options to check-in and check-out your data models. This would mean that you can get your data modeling changes reviewed by some of the team members.

The option to check-in and check-out option is not available in this tool. We are doing the steps manually to run the workflow that we defined. 

Even with the changes that the other team members will make, the owners of these respective areas will have to manually identify those changes and then merge them back to the enterprise models. That is what is lacking with this solution, that we have seen so far.

In the next release, I would like to see an automated way to check-in and check-out your data models and with the review process, where multiple people can make changes to a model, and with the workflow, everything will be automated where the data models can request someone to review the modifications. This would be everything that is needed in the next release.

We just started using this tool a couple of months ago.

So far, the technical support has been great. 

Support is a part of our license agreement.

They have helped us with setting up some of the initial support and workflows and that was very good.

Previously, I worked with IBM data modeling, called Data Architect tool with a different company. My experience with Erwin was brief but not very extensive.

When I changed jobs, we were evaluating other data modeling tools and finally chose the Sparx Enterprise Architect.

I wasn't a part of the initial setup.  

We had the help of the Sparx Enterprise consultants to set up this solution.

I am using Sparx as a client or a user of the tool, and as a user, I had to install the Sparx client on my machine. That was simple enough.

The configuration on these client machines is easy.   

The licensing is not as expensive as some of the other data modeling tools such as Erwin.

Other than the manual steps we have to take, the product is pretty fancy and gives you a lot of options. I would rate this solution 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.

We use it for modeling and for making strategy.

Sparx offers good flexibility. 

The documentation could be better. Where I work, we speak French and we don't speak English, so we don't have anything in French. It's perfect in English, but we need something in French.

I have been using Sparx for 11 years. 

Stability is not perfect. When you are working with your notebook after 10 minutes that you don't touch your keyboard we see some stability problems with the system. It blocks it. They have to improve this. 

We have 100 tests. We have one company that represents Sparx here in Canada. They work with us and also give us technical support.

It's easy to scale because we integrated with Jira. It was very quick to start our work. It's very easy. It's good.

Their support is perfect. They are quick and courteous. 

We use Bonita, Lucidchart and erwin.

We had three months to compare and after that, we concluded that Bonita was very difficult to use for beginners. You have to have the experience, it's not easy for someone starting their career.

Sparx is more complex but in terms of functionality, it is easier to use. 

The initial setup is okay.

My advice would be to do a lot of training beforehand. We have invested a lot of money in terms of training because we didn't do it before, so it's a little bit difficult. 

In the next release, I would like to see more integration with other tools like Microsoft Azure. That's really important to us. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten.

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. 

The product is good. When I'm trying to do something specific for a part of project documentation, it's hard to get it figured out if you don't use it all the time. It's such a massive tool, it's hard to figure out how to dig in and get to the documentation where you have to be to get some idea of what to do. There are not a lot of examples that I'm aware of to be able to do that.

The user interface is going to be difficult because of all the things we have to do when we're doing design and trying to figure out use cases and stuff like that. Tutorials would really help out where you could just start to pick it up and say, "Okay, for this kind of thing, I'm going to go through this tutorial step by step and get it completed." They don't have that. There's nothing wrong with the tool. It's how to use it.

I have lightly been using Sparx for the last five years. 

There are always peculiarities in any large package like this. I didn't see anything that was really a showstopper. We've come to accept a lot of things that's just the way it is and go on, but there wasn't anything that really was a problem.

Scalability is not a problem. You can always increase the footprint of what the thing can do because it's so powerful.

I maintain Sparx in my company. I'm a designer and I'm an architect. I get to do everything. So consequently my time is picked at. It's not like I can specialize in just doing architecture.

I do plan on increasing the usage of it. We don't use it every day. If I've got a finite state machine and I'm trying to figure out how to document it, then I'll go ahead and log into this and try to figure out what I have to do to document a state machine and apply it to what I'm doing.

That kind of thing is always difficult. It's not just coming up with C++ classes and just a bunch of UML, but there are things that you have to have both the graphical presentation and the words pulled together to figure out what the heck is going on in this design.

I didn't have any problem with the initial setup. It took over an hour to set up. It doesn't take long on the install. It's longer to configure it for the part of the project you want to use it for. It's got such a massive footprint as far as what you could use it for in a project, but if you're a one or two-man shop, you're just going reach and get it. It's got to be done real quick and it's difficult to do that because it's such a massive tool.

Visual Paradigm is the first one I had about five years ago, I added Enterprise Architect. Enterprise Architect gives a good overview of the tool, but I find that it's difficult for me to take that example and apply it to what I'm trying to accomplish in documenting a design.

The advice that I would give is that you should be willing and able to spend a lot of time outside regular working hours to get to know the tool because it's difficult to just pick it up and if you've got no mentors or tutorials that are so specific as to cover what you're trying to do, you have to dig it out. It's difficult.

I would rate it a nine out of ten.

I use the solution primarily to get some design done and to have some guidance and documentation.

The product overall is quite good.

The initial setup is easy.

The solution is quite robust.

The solution is difficult to learn.

The documentation needs a bit of improvement. What I find is that when I'm trying to do something specific for some part of a project, in terms of documentation, it's kind of hard to get at figuring out if you don't use it all the time. 

It's hard, because it's such a massive tool, to figure out how to dig in and to get to the place you need to go. The documentation would give you some idea of what to do. There's just not a lot of examples that are fully baked that I'm aware of.

The user interface is difficult, however, it was going to be difficult anyway, because of all the things we have to do when we're doing design and trying to figure out use cases and stuff like that. What I'm getting at is more tutorials are needed. You should be able to just to pick it up and say, okay, for this kind of thing, I'm going to go through this tutorial step by step and get it completed. And I don't see that as an option for getting to know the solution.

I've been using the solution for five years.

There are always peculiarities in any large package like this. I didn't see anything that sent anything off the rails. We've come to accept a lot of things. That's just the way it is.  We go on, but there has never been anything that's really been a big problem.

Scalability is not a problem at all. You can always increase the footprint of what the thing can do due to the fact that it's so powerful.

I do plan on increasing the usage of it. If I've got a finite state machine and I'm trying to figure out "how do I document this thing", then I'll go headlong into this solution and try to figure out what I have to do to document everything and apply it to what I'm doing. 

The specific design use cases can be difficult. It's not just coming up with C++ classes and stuff like that. It's just a bunch of UML, but there are things that you have to have both the graphical presentation and the words fold together to figure out what the heck is going on in this design. That's why I'll probably continue to use it, and expand my usage of it.

In the past, I've used Enterprise Architecture. It gives you a good overview of the tool, however, I found it was difficult for me to take that example and apply it to what I'm trying to accomplish in documenting the design.

I didn't have any problem with the original setup at all. I wouldn't say it is complex. It's pretty straightforward.

Deployment takes probably over an hour due to the fact that, once you get it installed, it takes a while to configure it for the part of the project you want to use it for. It's got such a massive footprint as far as what you could use it for in a project, that if you're a one or two-man shop, it takes a while. With such a massive tool, there's just a lot of man-hours to get everything as you need it.

We don't really have the bandwidth to have a specific person to maintain the solution; we do that ourselves.

I just have a one-seat license manager. I'm not sure what the pricing is on it.

We're just a customer. We don't have a business relationship with Sparx.

The solution is deployed through the application installed on a Windows 10 machine and I do everything on the machine, not on the Cloud. I stay away from the Cloud. We're not that big, basically a two-man shop. 

The advice that I would give other users is that you better be willing and able to spend a lot of time outside of regular working hours to get to know the tool because it's difficult to just pick it up. If you've got no mentors, or if you've got no tutorials that are so specific as to cover what you're trying to do, you have to dig it out. It's difficult.

That said, the solution is as good as they come. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. If it offered more tutorials, I might give it full marks. At the end of the day, the solution is only as good as the person using it.

Our primary use case is as a UML tool, a diagramming tool that also enables you to build an inventory of different objects and different entities. We are a customer of Sparx and I am an enterprise architect.

The most valuable feature is the ability to keep an inventory of reusable blocks, and use them in different diagrams with views of various templates that are also available. It also has the ability to work as an add-on with Zachman Framework and a variety of other frameworks adapted to this product. It's a good UML tool. 

I think the solution could be improved visually. It's not as visually appealing as other solutions. There is a difference between being focused on a technical audience or a business audience. A business audience requires a greater effort and good visuals. Integrations with SharePoint, for example, could be beneficial. If you are using on-premise installation, the sharing of your artifacts with people that don't have a license, can be somewhat complicated.

I've been using this solution for eight years. 

This is a stable solution. 

This solution is scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward and it's a simple implementation. 

Although we use an on-prem version, they've now moved over to cloud so the sharing is much easier and has improved the solution overall. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

The primary use case is product architecture.

This is a great tool for creating models with a very flexible data model behind the diagrams, making updates simple.

The most valuable feature is the integrated data model, so if I change the name of an item, all models using that object are automatically updated.

This solution should have better ease of use for the uninitiated.

I have been using this solution for more than ten years, on and off.

I was using this solution to document a Business Architecture, and including BPMN 2.0 Process Models that were then used to create Process Design documents. We were running V13.0 in an internal network with the then third-party product, and Prolaborate. The implementation of Prolaborate was in a test environment and this became an increasingly frustrating problem.

We were able to produce a range of Process-based reports that were published to Confluence reports, as well as our Business and Processes Architectures, for use by a large internal program. The Business end-users and external vendors seemed happy with the outcomes, although some members of the program management team struggled to understand the importance of these documents. 

The most valuable features are the flexibility and adaptability of Sparx Enterprise Architect. However, these aspects come at a cost of complexity in configuration and management of customization. 

Using EA involves a steep learning curve if you want to understand its capabilities and functionality.

Providing more detailed information about how to configure and adapt EA for consumption by users with less technical knowledge or experience would be helpful. Plus, provide online training that covers the basics of as well as more advanced topics. An introduction on how to do the basic configuration for the non-technical users would also be of benefit.

I was employed on contract by this company, but I had previously used Orbus iServer for Process modeling and developing Business and Enterprise Architecture artifacts. This company had previously used Visio. 

You can search for Business and Process Architects, who have limited technical expertise, and that can be a challenge. In that sense, we were very lucky to have a fantastic team of consultants, who had vast experience and knowledge in how to configure and adapt to meet our needs. They were also able to give us guidance when we were going down the wrong path.

In terms of cost, Sparx EA is probably one of the cheapest tools I have ever used. However, study the most important versions of EA before you buy it. I'd also recommend that you buy the edition up from the version you think you need, as we found that was an issue in our early days.

I wasn't involved in the selection and acquisition process. Since I began in this role, I have been working with SaaS products, such as Signavo's suite of products. In my view, these products are far more usable than client-server products, in terms of getting projects underway and using them in workshops. However, I think that they are not as versatile and functional as products such as EA, although they are rapidly catching up with desktop products.