Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect Reviews

We use it for model-based system engineering (MBSE).

I think having some of the profiles and ready-made templates is an extremely helpful feature. This is one of the biggest features that I find very useful in Sparx.

The documentation and the help center within the tool are very helpful as well. They are written in much simpler terms. The examples are very clear, and the video tutorials are there. You can find a lot of video tutorials that can definitely help you to understand how to do certain tasks that you want to accomplish in Sparx.

I think it's very stable and scalable as well. It is also an affordable solution.

The UI is a little bit outdated. It should be more fresh and clean.

The other thing that I would really love to see improve is the roadmap capabilities. They advertise that you can use Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect to do roadmapping, but I don't think that this is really accurate because the roadmapping capabilities are very basic and you can't really do a lot with them.

Also, the Veeva Forms Management capabilities, which are built-in, could be improved. They are okay, but they could be much better as well.

I would love to see more emphasis on Agile product development within the tool itself. So, if I am managing an Agile project or a scrum project, I would love to be able to plan my sprints within the tool and manage user stories, use cases, and test cases within the tool itself without the need to use any other tool.

I've been using Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect for approximately two years now.

It is a very stable product.

It is a scalable solution, and we currently have three system architects who use it.

We hope to increase usage in the future. We are a consulting company, and if we got a project that required the use of any of the features available in Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, then it would be the tool that we will be using.

We used MagicDraw and switched to Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect because it has a better UI and also has profiles and ready-made templates.

The initial setup was very straightforward; very easy. It took a very short amount of time, and we were able to have things up and running in less than a day.

I implemented it myself.

We absolutely feel that Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect provides a good ROI.

We have an annual license, and it's very affordable.

It's a very good starting point and a very affordable solution with a lot of features. I would rate it at nine on a scale from one to 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.

Architecture Design (component, deployment), Reference Architecture (enterprise, technology) and Solution Management (external artifacts) accessible globally to all of IT via AWS cloud.

Improved cross-functional team collaboration. Dynamic visual activity models improved communication and understanding with the business. Shared repository enabled reuse of model elements by users. Established a well-defined structure to manage whole solutions. Ability to ingest external document artifacts became a viable alternative to SharePoint. UML based modeling enable model-first approach in lieu of document-first approach to solutioning (alternative to Microsoft Office - Word, Excel, Visio, Powerpoint) 

Version 14 menu organization is much better. Ability to ingest external artifacts with added metadata coupled with UML based modeling is moving the organization to a more digital way of working while preserving legacy artifacts.

A better deployment model for the enterprise without relying on HKEY_CURRENT_USER in the registry.

Very stable. Rarely a crash.

In general, performance and scalability is solid. There are times when communication to the shared repository in AWS would be inconsistent, but I think that was due to the corporate network connection

Customer service / technical support is via email only so is constrained to 24 hour turnaround. Otherwise good responses. 

The Solution Architect team used a combination of Visio (UML), Word (Document Templates), Excel (Requirements) and SharePoint (Repository). Sparx replaced all of this while retaining all of the prior tool features and enabled cross-functional team collaboration for solutioning.

There was a learning curve to deployment constrained by needing to install as the user until we figured out how to deploy using MSI scripts, elevated privileges and a standard REGEDIT file containing a Sparx configuration.

Implementation using in-house team.

We gained 10 - 20 percent improvement to productivity (measured by time to complete solution) and improved quality (measured by reviews)

Setup a shared RDBMS repository (SQL, Oracle, etc.), acquire shared license keys and deploy using MSI scripts.

Considered Visio Professional (has a repository), ArchiMate (too high-level), Rational (too costly)

Establish best practices for solutioning including standardized stereotypes. Drive adoption using a hybrid approach of modeling and ingesting external documents since not everyone will learn to model equally using UML.

We use Sparx to create enterprise-level architecture in high-level environments and ticketing IT landscapes.

The solution saved a lot of time, about 30%.

I like that this tool contains all of my needs. I have AWS, GCP, and Azure icons. The tool assures collaboration, where my diagrams and graphics are automatically shared amongst the team. I also like the maturity of this tool, where I can present different layers depending on the audience. For example, is this a board or at the IT director level? or is it a developer? I can organize my graphics accordingly.

Another thing I like about the tool is the notation. Features like UML are available, so the tool checks things for me.

The dashboard and connectivity could be improved.

I've used Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect for more than eight years.

I rate the solution's scalability an eight out of ten, and we have 25 users using it.

I rate the solution's pricing a five out of ten.

I recommend Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect and rate it a nine out of ten.

I have used the solution to manage software architecture.

The solution offers different types of models and features apart from diagrams. It also supports giant patterns for software systems with a high level of extraction independent from implementation networks. 

The solution's interface is very complex. Its usability could be easy. Also, its layout could be improved regarding quality control and making recommendations.

It is a stable solution.

Around five executives used the solution actively in my previous company. It is scalable for larger projects.

It is simple to build the first model for the solution.

The solution is quite expensive.

I advise others to understand the project requirements while making purchase decisions. If you have an extensive and complex software development project, go for Sparx Systems. But, if it's a small project, look for other tools.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is used by our architects to put out artifacts, collaborate, work together, and share those artifacts. The product is used to maintain the versions of architectural diagrams, use case diagrams, etc.

I'd like Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect to be more stable, and have a more improved performance. It should also have a sharing feature and allow us to easily share artifacts with our business partners, rather than requiring them to install the product on their site first. If people who don't have licenses could also view what we're sharing, that would be great.

I've used Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect for the past 10 years.

This product should be more stable.

The cloud version of Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is scalable, without a doubt.

I'm satisfied with the technical support for Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect.

The initial setup for this product was slightly complicated. It was complicated for the business users, the non-IT teams, and the non-technical teams, but I was able to do the setup myself.

We pay for the license of Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, and it is a yearly subscription.

I evaluated Visio. I use it in parallel with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect.

I used Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect on-premises at the start, then later on for other clients, I used it on cloud. I used the latest version on cloud, but for the on-premises deployment, I used an earlier version, but I don't remember the version number.

There is a learning curve with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, e.g. to be comfortable and to start using it full-fledged. It took me a month of practice.

On average, we have 50 users of this product, and 20 technical people in charge of its deployment.

I can recommend Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect to other people who may want to start implementing it.

My rating for Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is eight out of ten.

My company is a leading software team. I tend to get brought in early stages for understanding and identifying problems. I look through what the customers are actually doing and I tend to move on into the system's analysis and architecture to see whether there are opportunities for interventions and gaps.

The features I find most valuable is the ability to create a document and then put it into a OneCare artifact. This feature allows me to share the visual I bring about with other communities that are not system analysts because not everyone can afford to have a copy of Enterprise Architect. 

Additionally, the solution operates well as a whole and has very comprehensive capabilities.

The areas of improvement should be focused on utility service such as producing better graphics, perhaps having a wider image library set and producing better models for working directly with customers. The solution does not provide things like shadow effect and 3D computer graphics instead of 2D.

More polishing on the presentation should be included in the next release. 

I have been using this on a regular basis for the last four years. For the additional six years, I have used the solution in intervals as I needed.

Initially, I found the stability of this solution reliable until there was an unexpected access crash leaving an LDB that prevented me from accessing my database, even after deleting the LDB file.  I had to use the previous version to solve the problem which I had to work on for two days.

I find the solution very configurable. I could go in and change the format for export. I brought products into the ArchiMate from EA and the other way around. They seemed to work because they store them as common components.

The support team have been very good at responding and coming back quickly with a query.

I previously used to work on Salamander but it did not add on what I already know. I was also recently teaching Visual Paradigm and ArchiMate.

The initial setup was straightforward to run as a single user on a single machine. There might have been an issue around installing access to the image library on the cloud environment. I think it was just a patch version that I needed to get to fix the issue.

The licence has a costly upfront fee which gets you access. You have to pay an annual maintenance fee, which is less.

I think the pricing is justified because I use it very often. 

I would certainly recommend this solution if you are a serious business or a system architect, who are modelling complex systems. You will already be aware of the product and you will know what it could do for you.

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

We're still investigating it on the structural side. Our primary focus is on CCML and UML, the creation of documents, and requirement management. After that, we will teach our company about how we're going to use the product. I am using its latest version. It is deployed on-premises on the company cloud.

It is a very flexible product. It can do a lot. It is also a reliable product. 

I would like it to be less of a general tool. Currently, it is not a Swiss army knife that can do everything. It is not specialized for our purposes. We are a civil engineering company. We build things. We work mostly in what is known as Infra world in the Netherlands, which comprises objects such as bridges, locks, and water management. We would like to see more focus on such types of projects. It would be nice if it has more specializations. At the moment, it is very generic, and you have to create everything yourself. 

Our focus is more on user requirement management, which is currently very basic. I would like to see a lot more functionality in this area. Its basic functions for adding user requirements are perfect, but we need more features. Currently, it has limited possibilities for our requirements. I would also like to see better contract management and have it managed in a certain way. 

I have been using this solution for a year.

It is very stable. I've had no problems or issues.

I'm using a database-based client of Enterprise Architect, and it is very scalable. 

We are testing it at the moment. I am working with four or five people in that area. After we have enough confidence in the product and we have a new project, we would most likely roll it out to a hundred plus people. There are two projects that are currently using Enterprise Architect within the company. One of them already has more than 100 users. The company I work for has 30,000 employees. It will be used by quite a lot of people.

In the Netherlands, the support for this solution is very limited. You have to rely on some consultants, but at the moment, the knowledge of these consultants is also quite limited. They quote a quite high price for their knowledge, but the impression that we get is that they're learning on the job. They call themselves specialists, but they're not really specialists. When I look at other countries, particularly the United States, the consultants are a lot more knowledgeable, and they know more about the product. We don't have that in the Netherlands.

I have tried different packages. VCL is a very well-known package, which can also generate code to a certain extent and create documents, but it is limited. I have used a number of open-source tools, such as Star UML. There are a lot of different packages that are good in a certain area, but you can't combine things very easily. They require a lot of work and a lot of people to collect the information by using Excel tables or databases.

We are also looking at another tool that is very much focused on CCML, which makes it limited. It is certainly not as flexible as Enterprise Architect. We also have to look at the knowledge of the engineers working on the project, and most of them are not software engineers. They have a background in civil engineering. Enterprise Architect is certainly a product with potential, and we would like to introduce it, but it is very difficult to implement it in our project. Most likely, a few users will use Enterprise Architect. The remaining users would continue to use Word or Office products to create their documents, and a few will add the required information to the model.

Overall, I would rate Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect an eight out of ten. If I was rating it specifically for our business, I would rate it a five out of ten. It is very difficult to use it in our company. It is a good product, but it is difficult to implement in a non-software company.