Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect Reviews

• UML (Class diagrams, Use cases)
• XML schemas
• ArchiMate
• BPMN templates

• Conceptual, Logical and Physical Data models transformation to database design which gave us the benefit of no hand crafting of code, and it can be published as HTML or as a Word document.
• BPMN process models benefits us as things can be copied and pasted into PowerPoint presentations and HTML
• ArchiMate models which helps in the publishing of HTML models for users without Sparx

Check in/check out functionality would support better team working around a common repository.

We've used it for six years.

We have no issues with the deployment.

The product has been very stable.

There have been no issues scaling it to our needs.

I have had to seek a little support from Sparx directly (licencing options) as I mostly find that forums answer my questions.

I have used more expensive modelling tools such as Rational Rose, Provision, PowerDesigner, and Visio. Sparx EA beats all of these hands down on a cost/benefit analysis.

It's very easy to set-up. A shared repository with floating licences takes more effort but is not complex.

We did it in-house and I would advise that your Spax administrator is trained.

ROI is difficult to quantify but the tool will typically pay for itself in the first project.

The cost of licensing is never an issue (circa US$199 per seat) and offers incredible value for the features it contains.

Download a trial copy for yourself. You will need to understand UML, BPMN or ArchiMate to use the tool.

We use it for data modeling, business process modeling, and all kinds of enterprise architecture tasks such as DoDAF, ArchiMate, SysML, and UML. We do a lot of data modeling, model transformation, and GIS modeling with it. 

We are using its latest version.

There are a couple of things. Price is one thing, but we also like the scriptability of it. We got into scripting it and automating tasks with it, and it is super duper easy to do and helpful. The API has improved over the years. We automate everything, and I love the automation aspects of it.

Its documentation is not 100% perfect, but it is good enough. It is powerful, but because it is so powerful, it is sort of arcane.

It took me a while to figure out how to use the report generation features effectively. So, it would be really nice if they had a way to make that a little bit more interactive and a little bit more straightforward.

Something that is a little bit annoying is that the changes that you make to models are instant and permanent. So, you have to be careful with what you do, and you should do a backup or have some kind of a version control scheme in there. I'm used to Word where you can hit Control+Z and undo what you just did. It is not quite that way in Enterprise Architect. There are cases where the model changes, so you got to be careful with what you do before you change the model.

I set up our Pro Cloud Server literally last week. I've used EA for 10 years or more.

I don't think I've ever had it crash before.

They're amazing. They're a great company. All my interactions with them have been outstanding. So, they're good.

I've used a few other tools such as public domain RG and System Architect. EA is a good, cheap, flexible, and capable tool.

EA is extremely easy to set up and use once you know what you're doing. You really do need to have some kind of an overview from someone to get it started. They have good online tutorials, so you can get going. It is pretty easy to get going.

It is cheap.

I am about to do testing of interoperability between EA, System Architect, and a few other things. I'll be really interested to see how the ins and outs of sharing artifacts between those two capabilities work.

I would advise others who are looking into implementing EA to get training. I learned it the hard way. I'm hardheaded, and I just went at it myself, but getting training is going to be a helpful thing on what to do and how to do it correctly. I would learn how to do what you're trying to do before buying a tool to do it. Data modeling is not just about the tool, it is about the actual data modeling itself. So, if you're going to do enterprise architecture, you have to take enterprise architecture training from The FEAC Institute or another institute. Instead of just going right in and using the tool, it is better to be trained. I train my people in what they're doing and not just the tool. They do it way better when I give them the tool.

I would rate Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect an eight out of 10. We do a lot of things with it, and it is a great tool, but no one is a 10.

As an analyst (i.e. IT Business Analyst, or Requirements Engineer), I’m in charge of the correct understanding of the clients’s requirements expressed in a very variable way, and for capture of these requirements in a structured Requirements Model. Afterwards, Requirements must be translated into an Analysis Model (Domain Model & Use Case Model). This work is done using the UML capabilities of the tool, with the added values of the Relationship Matrix and Traceability tool for a better control on the entire models.

The Reporting tool is easy to use, but it's considered as just a communication tool. The prioritization of use case development has to be done before workload estimation and planning. In the Inception phase, the Project Management/Metrics tool/Workload estimation tool is very valuable in order to dress an initial planning.

When modelized, the scope of any developed application is clear for both the Client and the Development Team. The thing that is going to be developed and present in the application is known from the beginning of the projet. Afterwards, any further requirements can be seen through the already existing models and the impact is easily visible.

We miss an integration tool like ARCSeeker which is intended to register elicited elements in a Common repository with all their associations (this was removed last year). This feature helps for further integration of all Projects developped, with a better cross domain understanding.

We've been using it since January 2007, so approximately nine years.

We didn't experience any deployment issues.

We've not had any issues with the stability.

We have had no issues scaling it for our needs.

Very good. Any submitted question is quickly answered. The Help Online and white papers, webinars, and user groups are very valuable.

It was straightforward as support had been requested for installation, and users had been registered for a short term classes.

The initial setup was done with the help of their support teams, and all subsequent ones were done in-house.

All I can say is that the tool is known for being cheap. Depending upon the community usage in your company, Floating Licences can be valuable for a large user group.

It was a matter of price and quality! Other solutions were offering “better integrated tools”, but our goal was the UML for analysis purpose and Sparx EA proposed all the required features for a good price, and continuity and quality of support.

The main thing is that any project is documented, and a project review is performed. You also need to make sure that the change requests are handled in a right way.

Stick to your business and your own needs and have a method. Sparx EA is just a tool, and you’re the boss. The tool just helps you to get all the puzzle pieces ordered in the way you want.

Support for different modeling standards in one package allows to have one tool for many roles.

The underlying data model that supports the models allows exposing architecture data to people who don't need or want to see diagrams.

We used Sparx as a central repository for architecture models. Subsequently used on project delivery as a reference and during strategic planning.

A full SaaS version would be very helpful. Also, I would like to see more investment in Archimate notation. Right now it is still geared mostly towards UML.

I've been using it for five.

We had no issues deploying it.

In a database-server deployment there are performance/locking issues when multiple users make changes simultaneously. We had to establish processes to facilitate coordination of concurrent work.

We had no issues scaling it for our needs.

It's email only support, and they have a long turnaround.

It's very easy.

We implemented it ourselves with no major problems or delays.

Value is the key driver. The product is inexpensive and offers rich functionality. They offer concurrent licensing scheme which is very attractive from cost perspective.

In a multiuser environment, you can't really go around the need for process to control access. Otherwise the quality of information will suffer.

Modelling and project-actual-state document generation. It is, as always, the most critical need of every project. Due to the presenting concept and impact analysis, this is a good tool.

My organization didn’t manage to take advantage. It needs a ‘critical mass’ of users and understanding to generate benefit, but here we failed.

There is some room for improvement in the presentation and graphics. I know the power of Sparx EA is describing ideas and modelling but facilitating presentation of models need some ergonomic improvements.

I've been using it for four years.

We had no issues with the deployment.

There were no issues with the stability.

We had no issues scaling it for our needs.

We didn’t have any cases to call for support, but we enjoyed the activities being performed and invited to – webinars and educational videos.

There were some applications being used for business process and system documentation – every department with its own. Slowly, the need for a more powerful tool became obvious, and at the time, one of the requirements put on the table was to unite different departments documenting efforts. After some evaluation, we came to the conclusion – in the IT and telecommunications areas, that usual written documents concerning systems and their design, start to become outdated at the moment of being published. Supporting models that can somehow automatically generate documentation was the real thing. Besides the impact analysis from models appear to be natural activity and the result is actual at the moment of generation. According to us, Sparx EA was ideal for this need.

The setup topology was - central repository, shared keys, version control system, domain controlled users.

A vendor performed the initial deployment. An instructor from Sparx introduced us to the product capabilities. They performed the deployment and tuning of the common storage and wrote the client installation script. they then supplied it to the infrastructure administrators and provided instructions.

Return of Investment is hard to evaluate. We expected the supported systems to achieve a reduction in time for analysis and documentation and change due to a better understanding and reduced risk. The calculation in m/h are not performed due to coinciding structural changes and loss of focus on ‘Sparx project’.

Enterprise – this is most suitable licensing scheme for medium to large companies.

It's a great product, but it needs intelligent users. This appears to be its weakness so it is absolutely obligatory to invest some time in education. Modelling, UML, BPMN, and SysML require an abstract way of thinking. It is not achieved on fly. To keep the team of keen contributors – they are those who involve the rest.

We used this solution to implement a turn-key, ERP project. I was the system architect for this project.

As a business analyst, I am responsible for the requirements and arrangement. This solution makes my work very easy. Some of the business processes are very easy to compare when you have the diagrams.

The most valuable features are the Business Process Management and the Architect.

I think that collaboration can be better. It isn't bad but it can be improved. It would be nice if you can have interaction with other users, in a community of some sort, where you can have a discussion and frequently asked questions. It would be best if you don't have to send a text and wait for a measurable time before getting a response.

Some of the attributes do not exist for models, and you have to customize in order to have them. They are supposed to be standard attributes.

The entire interface can be improved.

I think that it is a mature tool, and it's fairly stable.

We found it very difficult to scale this solution.

We're not sure if it was a limitation with the client security, but we had some problems. I don't think that Sparx is non-scalable, but maybe it can try to adapt to different clients.

I am satisfied with the technical support. I have not encountered any problems, so I think that it is one hundred percent.

I found the setup to be simple, but it may be because I am used to the environment. It was implemented as a turn-key project over approximately six months, with the total project being about a year in length.

We handled the implementation.

My advice for somebody implementing this solution is to make sure that they utilize it to its full capacity so that they can draw the greatest value out of it. This product can provide the user with a number of solutions, so one has to make sure that they exploit all of the benefits.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

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.

• Use cases
• Requirements
• Test cases
• UML diagrams as sequence, class and others

Was able to create full specifications (BRD, FRD, Tech design documents), utilizing SPARX application.

Product is very visual, but not intuitive.

1.5 years.

We didn't deploy, as we didn't have connection to database environment for security reasons.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

10 out of 10. Emails were answered and phone calls as well.

Didn't use much, only twice and it was very good.

I used Visio. No comparison, SPARX much better.

Easy, because it was local. Network setup more difficult and costly.

In house. Vendor not needed, which simplified our life.

Prices are very affordable.

Rational Doors from IBM. Their product much more expensive and less agile.

It takes time to learn diagram language, if you're not used to it. After a couple of weeks it becomes second nature.