Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect Reviews

• 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.

(Enterprise) solution architecture.

(Enterprise) solution architecture creation.

• Flexibility
• Open DB.

Look and feel.

• It's generic-ness as you can batch edit objects
• Connectivity to all kinds of office documents because you can reuse your consisting work and link external documents
• Detection of requirement holes because large projects tend to be planned badly
• Completeness as because we do not need to use other tools

It improved our requirements by closing holes. It also, provided visualization features to translate requirements to a non technical language.

Personally, I had a hard time of learning how business modeling works, and simultaneously learning a new tool. I would like beginners tips, pointing you to important features and navigating you around common pitfalls.

We used the trial version for 30 days.

We did not use the deployment feature.

The program did not crash once. There was one issue while batch editing objects.

We had no issues scaling it to our needs.

We reported one problem but never received an answer.

The setup was straightforward.

I did it myself.

We have a positive ROI and will probably be buying it.

We are still in the evaluation phase.

In my company at the moment, many people have difficulty in using Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect. It is not easy for someone who is not experienced with the platform. It's not the correct level for our requirements. 

You cannot just open and start Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect. This is the entry barrier for inexperienced users. From the perspective of inexperienced users, the product needs improvement.

It supports multiple modeling languages like ArchiMate for database design, software lifecycle visualization, and team management. Merging all of them is a great feature.

Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is okay. I don't see anything that can be improved at the moment. For me it's perfect.

There used to be that feature in ArchiMate Modeling of Enterprise Architect called inherited relationships. The tool used to be equipped with this functionality of showing those relationships and now it's gone. It would be nice if it comes back.

I would like to see Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect more user-friendly and intuitive. This would be great. The product is okay for the experienced user, but for the entry-level people, it's somehow hard. They cannot start without one hour of introductory training.

Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is very stable.

I had some problems in the past when we had 50 concurrent users and it was based on the Oracle database. Because it was based on the Oracle database, we had some issues with performance. I don't know if it was the problem of Enterprise Architect or the wrong setup of the Oracle database. I did encounter some issues with the installations of that site for 50 concurrent users.

Right now we are just starting. It will be probably something around 10 users but not concurrent. For concurrent users, maybe there will be around five. For the main users, it will be about 10. The others are some roles like business process modeling experts, database experts, and solutions architect. In total, there will be three types of main user roles.

With our current project, we don't need technical support. In the past, I had some experience with the technical support team. It was okay. We had some programming issues that were solved. The response time was pretty good.

Aris was our previous tool. It was not extensively used but we decided to go with Enterprise Architect. In my work, sometimes I used Aris combined with Enterprise Architect. Aris was for business processing and Enterprise Architect was for mainly IT architecture.

The initial setup of Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect for the inexperienced user is non-intuitive.

I did the setup on my own based on the knowledge of the customer organization. I was supported by the external company that is experienced with the tool. I used different models for that.

I would advise anyone to find a good partner for guiding the methodology of modeling. Maybe some technical support is required if you need the integration of your tool.

In this project, Aris was the main competition.

I would rate Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect an eight out of ten. It's pretty good, but it's not that intuitive for the beginner user.

It's like a repository. So far, we use it only for Information Modelling.

• Repository.
• Reuse of objects
• Making fewer mistakes in models (i.e., naming objects, attributes, etc.).

It would be great if we could decrease the use of different parts of the Toolbox. By doing so, forcing temporary consultants to use our Profile and no other items from other toolboxes.

Personally: Three years. The organization: about seven years.

No.

So far, no. We use the local database. In the future, we have to start using a central Database (Cloud?).

From 1–10: Nine (fast response).

Word (Microsoft Office), Visio.

Complex, because we used a profile.

No clue…Licenses are pretty low cost compared to, for example, ARIS.

My colleague did this before I started using EA. Dunno exactly, but I thought about Bizzdesign, ARIS, and one or two other products.

For the initial setup, get people with good knowledge from Sparx EA .

• Easy drag and drop
• Reuse the old copy
• Quick changes with minimal efforts
• Anyone can work on the same file
• File is small in size.

Large diagrams for hardware infrastructure, HA environments, Integrated Solution view, etc all help different teams to understand the scope of projects.

Should be on the cloud so that its flexible for making changes and managing different versions. Anyone from a team can work on a copy with project shared user for quick delivery, but there are license limitations that should be based on the number of running threads and not on a per-user basis.

We've used it for the last 10 years.

Installation will be challenge for quick and one time use, some time the code not sync due to some issues,

There have been no issues with the stability.

We have had no issues with scaling it for our needs.

I haven't had to contact technical support.

It's straightforward, but too much configuration is required with SVN or local code.

Westraightforward, but too much configuration is required with SVN or local code.

If the project life cycle is delivered through some standard ICONIC process E2E then Sparx will help a lot for artifacts.

The business process management of Sparx is valuable.

We've improved overall to some extent due to Sparx.

UML analysis needs to improved.

We've been using it for three years.

There's a lack of diagrams available during deployment.

We had no issues with the stability.

We have been able to scale it to our needs.

We haven't had to contact tech support.

We previously used MAP.

It was straightforward.

We used a vendor team.

Development for simplifications, host tutorial and case studies.

Cheap and affordable tool to generate architecture artifacts. 

This is a well-known vendor whose tool has been used by at least two colleagues on my team.

It has not improved our organization mainly due to the poor diagramming capabilities within the product, which are outdated and look like Visual Studio 2005. As a result, our architecture team constantly reverts back to Visio diagramming (and Visio's inability to reference defined artifacts).

• Its ability to reference and link to components from any diagram.
• The vast number of frameworks supported to get started with modelling.

Improve the following:

• Report builder
• Diagramming capabilities
• Connector routing and layout algorithms
• Inconsistent UI elements must be tidied up with the toolbox gaps removed.
• Alignment and button sizes need to be made consistent. 
  

Recommended features would include:

• A refreshed diagramming canvas (even outsourced to a third-party diagramming vendor, if necessary).
• Replace built-in report writer with direct integration to Microsoft Word.
• Improve dashboard "Getting Started" guidance to direct modelling activities according to "what" I wish to achieve, e.g., "I wish to generate a Platform Application Map," and all the most appropriate/popular types of diagrams are made available.
• Improve support to intuitively generate hierarchical navigation diagrams.