Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect Reviews

I use Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect to model BPM, UML, model enterprise architecture, and use with ArchiMate.

It's a stable and scalable solution. I like that it's similar to Rational Rose.

It could be more user-friendly. The tools could be more simple to use. It's a very complex solution. Because I am a business analyst, I use these tools to manage requirements, and I make models in UML, BPMN, and ArchiMate, and it's complex. In the next release, I would like to see more integrations.

I have been using Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect for over ten years.

It's very stable. 

Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is a scalable solution. The number of users we have depends on the project. In some projects, we have about 20 people, or in small projects, just one person. 

A few years ago, I used Rational Rose, and Sparx Enterprise Architect is similar. In comparison to Rational Rose, it's more stable.

It's a very easy installation.

I implemented this solution by myself. You need a technical team with three to five people to deploy and maintain this solution.

In Poland, it's a very popular tool, and I recommended it. It's not ideal, but they are very good tools.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect a nine.

Creating a repository than everyone can work on for an entire enterprise and then creating a custom fit set of concepts, tools and process.

It provides a centralized, self-regulating (like a spreadsheet is self regulating) standardized repository of architectural artifacts which can take in or spit out a custom selected subset of these artifacts in a wide variety of forms including diagrams, spreadsheets, MS Word documents, tables, xml, JSON, etc. By allowing extreme customizability, it has drastically reduced learning and ramp up time for new uses.

Automated reporting saves me a kazillion hours a week of cutting, pasting and editing.

Profiles and Stereotypes allows me to reduce the learning curve for newbies by 95%

The automated charts and graphs hold great appeal for business types and its ability to connect with so many other tools (DevOPs, Jira, etc) make it a great enterprise level hub.

Their business model does not include consulting services but this can be a strength in some cases.

Companies that include or even highlight the consulting arm of their companies can easily create a situation in which the on site staff become dependent on the vendor consultants and are unable to progress without them.

Knowing which button to select or which icon to click on is one thing but understanding how a tools like this fits in to the overall methodology takes an in company investment in integrating the tools and software process.

I've worked for most of the big name vendors and I know first hand that the only real way to learn is to roll up your sleeves and start using the tool on a regular basis.

Training and instruction are very available for Sparx via webinars, videos, pdfs, whitepapers and email support which I have always found to be first rate.

In addition to the huge number of manuals, videos, webinars and forums available, just googling a Sparx issues is likely to provide with a huge number of hits to find just what you are looking for.

It's huge user base (750 K) is a big advantage.

Yes one must invest a little time in learning how to use the tool.  Using the cup o soup paradigm, "just add hot water" will not work. If you want that , stick with Visio,

12 years

Perfect - never had any problems.

Perfect - never had any problems.

Though only available by e-mail they really know their stuff and respond very quickly.

Visio - it's like comparing crayons and paper to a spreadsheet.

BizzDesign - a very polished tool but much less flexible and customizable than Sparx EA. Also much more expensive.

No - install, run and if you want a repository run a db script.

YOu need to know how to run a database script.

In house ( myself)

I can conservatively estimate that expert users double their production and novice users gain 10% The more you use it for the more savings you will see.

The savings in license fees more than allows you to invest in a little training but get someone good.

The biggest challenge you will have with Sparx EA ( or any other modelling tool) is fully leveraging all the features it has to offer.

Too often, companies don't invest a little time in training  and it ends up being used as a drawing tool which is like using a smartphone only as a calculator.

Yes, but for the combination of price and value, no one beats them. Now if you want to pay a million dollars there's a lot to choose from.

While I've often heard the large million dollar tools tout how much more powerful they are I have yet to see anything they offer that Sparx EA doesn't.

Watch out for fraudulent consultants who spout jargon but know nothing about modeling. Make someone show you the real stuff they have done.

Look for someone who can explain modern modeling techniques and concepts in a very understandable and intuitive way. If someone spouts too much jargon, watch out.

I am in a new company, and we are beginning the process of modeling the architecture. We're using Enterprise Architect for that.

The TOGAF ADM model is most valuable. It is also very cheap as compared to other options in the market.

Its usability needs to be improved. For non-technical users, it is a little difficult to understand how Enterprise Architect works. Users who are not engineers find it difficult to understand how this tool works. This is something they need to work on.

They can develop a BPM model to simulate processes.

I have been using this solution for three years.

It is quite stable.

It is a fixed license, so we don't have the functionality of scaling it. We have five people who are using this solution. They all are in the strategy area of the company.

I didn't experience any issues so far, so I didn't ask for help.

I have used MEGA HOPEX in my earlier company, but it is very complex to understand and costly.

It is straightforward.

We are implementing it on our own.

It is cheaper than other solutions. Its cost is around $686 per year. There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

To implement this solution, you need experienced people who know about enterprise architecture.

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

I'm primarily using the solution for architecture design.

There are a lot of features in Enterprise Architect. It allows us to take on a lot of tasks.

The product has an easy initial setup.

The product is fairly stable.

Many items are not actually handy, I would say. Many things which should be working - regarding some techniques - are not working and seem to be buggy. Recently, I was trying to perform a task and I was thinking about getting in touch with Sparx about it. However, I started with confirming my concerns with colleagues, and now I would like to somehow report it to Sparx and ask them if the way the task is being handled a bug or feature.

For example, there seems to be inheritance between blocks. I know inheritance from programming, and I checked that this mechanism is still working in MagicDrawer. However, it's not working in Enterprise Architect almost at all. Some things which should be inherited are not inherited, or if they are inherited after, let's say, deleting the inheritance dependency that still remains in the target block. It is not logical, at least for a programmer. 

The solution needs to offer better support for the mobile-based system. Right now, it's not working.

I haven't been using the solution for very long just yet. It's only been about four months or so since I first began working with the product.

The solution is rather stable. I've only had two times crashes in the several weeks. Typically, I don't have too many issues with it. There are some bugs every once in a while, however.

I can't really speak to the scalability of the solution. It's not something that I've actually attempted. It may be scalable, however, without actually trying, I can't say.

The solution is widely used in our organization. We're very likely to continue using it, however, I can't say that with 100% certainty.

I haven't yet contacted technical support. I have questions for them, and I will likely in the future, however, I haven't yet and therefore can't speak to the responsiveness or level of knowledge they have.

I'm currently considering using MagicDraw.

The initial setup was not complex. It was a pretty straightforward task. 

The deployment was quick and we had it up and running in 50 minutes or so.

We handled the implementation in-house. We didn't need the assistance of an integrator or consultant.

I don't have any insights into the costs of the product. I don't know if it is expensive or reasonably priced.

I'm a customer.

The product is a standalone application on my site. It's licensed from the cloud.

I'm not sure if I would recommend the product. This tool has so many features. It depends on what a person needs to use. Generally, I've experienced some limitations from all the solutions that I've found - including this one. It's too complicated of a software solution to definitively recommend.

Overall, I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

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.

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.