Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect Reviews

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. 

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 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. 

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.

Our primary use case is related to the architecture around tying the business objectives and values to their maintenance management and asset management system. I'm a digital asset intelligence lead and we are customers of Sparx.  

The company wants to reduce its maintenance budget so the aim is to get more for less. The solution has achieved this and improved efficiency.

Sparx has good functionality to tie back the requirements coming all the way up to the balance score card. The connection is good as well being reusable so you can tweak the system and change different elements in it, which actually cascade down and see the connections with the other elements.

I think the UI could be improved and made a little bit more presentable. I've also found that sometimes finding the track of the information inside can be difficult. All their topics and help are related to each other with one link over the other and it's a bit like going down a rabbit hole and not being able to find your way back. It would be helpful to have some form of infographic showing how these concepts are related to each other. But I also understand that there is a huge amount of information available and sometimes finding the proper tool is not easy.

I've been using the solution for almost a year. 

I rate the solution seven out of 10. 

I want a solution that can interface with Jira and Confluence, both of which my customers have, as well as with that of Bizagi.

A feature I like most about Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is its ease of use. 

My customers use Bizagi, although I do not. I don't want to change this. What should be improved, however, are the integration capabilities of the solution with Bizagi. 

I work with IBM in enterprise architecture as the project manager. I used to use IBM Rational System Architect. I can now see as a consultant what I am able to offer the customer, not only that of IBM, of course. I am currently seeking solutions other than IBM. 

I previously used other tools, such as IBM's enterprise architect, although the tool has since been sold and the company changed. The IBM tool offers certain customization features which are not found in Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, although I can live with what it has at the moment. 

Since all the staff is already trained in Bizagi and find it easy to use, I do not wish to change this, but only to load all the processes from it to Sparx. This is my approach. 

The Bizagi model is only for process. It is not an enterprise architect tool. Only Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, but not Bizagi, allows one to make diagrams and metrics, to examine the relationship between all the elements.

We are developing EC software and I am in charge of that software system architecture for which I am using this solution.

The solution is easy to use, supports SysML and UML, and is able to connect to MATLAB. This is very important for us.

There should be a MATLAB-specific toolbox added to the solution with better compatibility. The connections currently are good but in the future, it needs a huge improvement.

I have been using this solution for approximately four months.

We have not tried to scale the solution yet but there are add-ons and extensions that are available.

The initial installation is complex. However, there are some very good tutorials online that we have been using.

We are doing the implementation ourselves.

There is a license for this solution. When comparing this solution to others it is priced well.

I have evaluated IBM doors.

I would recommend this solution to others.

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

We use this solution for our enterprise architecture and all forms of data modeling using UML.

Within our company, there are roughly 25 employees using this solution. 

We use this solution a lot. In fact, we plan on using it to cover all of our enterprise architecture-related tasks.

This solution provides us with good integration between different notations. It also features good reporting facilities coupled with a concrete database.

This solution is quite complex to use. It would be nice if the learning curve wasn't so steep. 

I can't think of any additional features that I would like to see in the next release. There are already plenty; if there were any more, it would only become harder to use. 

I have been using Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect for the past 10 years. 

This solution is quite stable. 

I haven't had to contact technical support. 

The initial setup isn't easy, but it's not hard either — it's in between. 

I think our license costs roughly $1,000 a year, but I could be wrong. 

I would recommend this solution to others. Just make sure to hire an expert to get you started. 

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight.