Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect Reviews

Creating diagrams and sets of reusable artifacts using UML, Arhimate and other notations.

Using diagrams and artifacts to generate documentation.

We adopted Sparx EA more than six years ago. Before that, all models were created in MS Visio and were maintained independently without any tractability. That led to insufficient incomplete impact analysis and incomplete solutions. With Sparx EA, models became a maintainable and reusable asset of the corporation. Correct impact analysis became a matter of minutes. As a result the quality of solutions drastically improved. Not mentioning that all employees in any department can now clearly understand business processes with all related applications and infrastructure at any level.

• Great adaptability to modeling needs of all organization departments: Business, Architecture, Software Development, and Systems Support.
• Kind of all-in-one solution (in a good meaning of it), through support for many standard modeling notations used in most of domains of the IT/IS. The list of supported notation grows constantly.
• Effective for Enterprise, Solution, and Software architectures.
• Ability to maintain cross-references for all models in all levels - great tractability.
• Versioning for all elements.
• Very attractive pricing and simple licensing model.
• Good set of the add-ons that grow and improve.

The elements of the modeling sets can have better customization and visual representation. It would be great to have a mobile version.

We did not encounter any issues with stability.

With very large projects, the loading time can become a bit longer, although not to the extent of becoming a great concern.

I would rate the level of technical support as "not bad". But I did not need to use technical support too much.

MS Visio was used for tractability and maintenance, and many other concerns, were the reasons that we switched.

The initial setup was very easy. After that, by following the best practices from the Sparx website, it is easy to organize the whole modeling process with versioning. You have the ability to reuse existing elements/projects and create customized project templates.

In my opinion, there is a great ROI on a product like this.

Pricing and licensing is very attractive, simple, and straightforward.

We evaluated other options such as Rational Software Architect, Visual Paradigm, and Altova UModel.

Plan and organize your elements and models using the best practices from the beginning and create customized project templates. That will benefit you greatly afterwards.

We are building it right now. We first have to build a repository and the tool, and then we have to develop the training for different types of users. We are using its latest version.

Its ease of use and the breadth of the toolkit are most valuable. It has an incredible repository of artifacts to work with, and they're all cross-referenced. 

It works with a whole bunch of different standards. It works with BPMN, which is Business Process Modeling Notation, and it also works with something called TOGAF, which is the Open Group Architecture Foundation. There are different layers when you're dealing with architecture. There is the user interface, application, data, data servers, and all that kind of stuff. You have the infrastructure, hardware, and software layers, and then you have the application and business capability layers. You can model a business process and decompose it into all of the applications, data, and hardware to support it.

They should make the Save button easier to find. 

A simplified user interface for a lighter user would probably be useful. I am not sure if such an interface is already there.

I have been using this solution for six months.

It is very stable.

It is scalable. Right now, we've only got a hundred books, but we want to have hundreds of thousands of books. There are only three of us using it in our architecture group, and then there are probably 30 other architects in other parts of the company who are using it.

My colleague is dealing with technical support. 

One of my colleagues did that. I am not familiar with the setup, but I know it is pretty elaborate because, like anything, you got to configure it the way you want. The more robust the tool, the more configuration it usually needs.

In terms of the software solution, it doesn't take a lot of maintenance. It is like building out a library.

I would advise others to understand their needs and find a tool that really meets their needs.

I would rate Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect an eight out of ten. It is a very strong tool, but I don't have enough comparison points to give it a higher rating.

1. Modeling to the Open Group’s Archimate specification
2. Model objects stored to a database for analytical purposes
   
3. TOGAF and Zachmann frameworks reinforce method-specific content models, etc.
   

1. Sparx EA is used to capture the current state of technology systems as it pertains to the business infrastructure and application components, and how they combine to support the business needs and goals
2. Similarly, it captures the planned state for projects that are delivering change
3. Similarly, it captures the planned state for projects that are delivering change

1. The product inherently does not support analysis of the models. For example, to determine what business processes will be impacted by work on a specific server requires a person knowledgeable in the notation to manually perform the analysis.
2. Documents generated from the product leave a bit to be desired.
   

Over one year

There are various add-on components depending on what features/version you buy. Trying to install all products as a non-admin did create challenges. Otherwise, installation with admin privileges was uneventful. Installation of the product’s database schema to the database was simple and the subsequent use of the database as a store for modeling data was easy.

No the product is generally very stable.

No. This product is a desktop tool and generally would not have any scalability issues unless using a centralized service, such as a database server.

No customer service has been needed in the one year of service.

No technical support has been needed in the one year of service.

Other solutions in earlier years. This product was an initial purchase for this need and did not replace any other product within this context.

Installation was straightforward for all components and configurations.

In house implementation.

The nature of this product did not justify an ROI but given a typical fully burdened rate for employee time, the sub-$1000 price tag is quickly recovered.

List price for EA Ultimate Edition was just under $1000/seat perpetual license. Use of a shared Microsoft SQL Server as a repository adds approximately $2.00/day for all EA users based on the company’s negotiated license fee.

Archimate from the Open Group as well as other more robust EA products, both open source and proprietary.

This is really just a modeling tool. Despite its name it does not really compare to to other “enterprise architecture” tools from companies such as Orbus, and Troux. That said the product offers full development life-cycle modelling in addition to some project management tie-ins.

There are many, but the most important is traceability, and having the option to quickly drill down from a birdseye view to the little details, and back.

I can create requirements, draw all kinds of UML diagrams, link it all together and produce nice PDF reports and charts for the stakeholders. We even quit using JIRA and perform issue tracking with a nearshoring team of 10 people directly in Sparx.

Once you know the tool, there is not much left that I miss. It lacks some collaborative functions like sending emails when a status changed. But I can perfectly live with that, by using Discussions and Model Mail in EA. Another thing is the locking of diagrams etc., which is important when working in a team. This can be a little bit cumbersome. But here I also have found a nice workaround, so again, I can perfectly live with that.

What I miss is a way to hide stuff that I don't need, so that all the windows and views are not clustered with unnecessary stuff. That would also be nice for new team members, so that they are not lost so many times.

I've been using it for four years.

We've had no issues with the deployment.

It is very stable. It only doesn't like when it loses connection to the database repository, but even after a forced reboot, I have never lost any data.

We have had no issues scaling it for our needs.

I only used it a few times, when I forgot passwords or license keys. The support was always fast and excellent.

I always compare EA with a lovely beast. It seems very complex at the beginning, because it provides you with all options in all places, but once you realized that you don't have to use it all, and you know your workflow, it just works perfectly.

We did it in house. It is a simple installation. Also, setting up the key store for managing the floating licenses is no rocket science.

The price for such a tool is very fair. You can choose between different versions depending on your needs, and you can scale up any time later. There is a free trial (30 days), and a free version of EA to view the model. This is perfect for stakeholder to see what is going on.

I really tried hard to find the best solution that suits all needs. JIRA/Confluence, and many UML tools like Magic Draw. The only tool that comes close is Visual Paradigm. After some time evaluating, I chose EA, because it gives me the freedom of writing SQL queries, and I can create backups of the whole model very easily. Also, the concept of floating licenses is very nice if you work with different external teams.

Just be prepared that at the beginning EA will overwhelm you with all its options. It is very hard for example to create your first nice looking report. But if you don't give up too early, EA will pay off on the long run.

When I confronted the developer team that I plan to switch from JIRA to EA, they were not really happy. But now, after a short while, they love it because they immediately see changes, have access to all the diagrams (ERDs, Sequence Diagrams etc.). They now always have the big picture (I'm using mind maps, for example), and wherever they are, they can simply right-click an element, click "Find in Diagrams" and see this element in context. We even do all time reports in EA, directly on the Issues, Requirements etc. The hidden power of EA comes with its "Tagged Values". We are doing scrum, with sprints and retrospectives etc. all in EA without any additional extension or third party tool.

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.

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.

I work for a big government organization, and I am an advisor. I provide advice about the standard IT solutions, BI solutions, and integration solutions. I advise about the standards that we have. We are trying to make everything as standardized as possible for the whole organization. While advising, I think about whether a solution is good enough and meets the standards. I also consider if we have to do some upgrades or if we need to change the solution. I only give advice. I am not the one making decisions. 

Modeling is a part of my work, and it has a lot of standard modeling languages. It is quite wide, and a lot is possible in it. We are not programming it ourselves, but if you are into programming and developing software yourself, you can go further and do a lot with Sparx. You can work from the framework and go into the details.

With this solution, you get a lot of value at a low cost. It is also quite intuitive in terms of use. I like the use of it. 

The fact that you can do a lot yourself is a plus point, but it also becomes a challenge because you need an understanding of the programming languages to get things to work. It becomes challenging for those who are not very good at programming. You have standard reports, but if you want to make your own reports, you have to program it. Similarly, if you want validations rules, you have to take care of them yourself. 

I have been using this solution for about five years.

It is stable.

We don't have a lot of users because we are not developing the software ourselves. We just use a few models of the software.

We have our own functional maintenance. We also have an external company for technical support. They get in touch with Sparx's technical support if needed, but I don't have an idea about if they need support. 

Its price is very good for the value that you get with it.

It can do so many things. Because of this, sometimes, it can be a bit difficult to find what you need, which is logical and expected in every tool with a lot of features. It is kind of a project in itself to learn to work with it. It is quite easy when you work with it for some time.

It is a very good solution. Before you start, I would recommend considering the following:

• How will you use it?
• Do you need a central database or does everything work separately?
• Do you need a lot of exports and imports for other things? 

There could be challenges in terms of the integrations of the models and when there are a lot of people working on it. You need to think about who is given what rights, and you shouldn't let everyone work on everything because it could become a mess. You need to think carefully about how to organize your work before you start working with it. 

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

I use it to demonstrate Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) and architecture repository. I also demonstrate the document generation facility of the tool. It has got a plugin named BRC, binary enterprise architecture system integration, and I use that to show to my participants' diagram-driven architecture, gap analysis using diagrams, work package creations, and architecture roadmap creation. 

It is a desktop solution. I have purchased the desktop version.

I like it because it is very economical. Price-wise, Sparx EA is very low cost. 

It is easy to use. Connecting entities is very easy in this.

It is an EA tool that is approved by Open Group. It is in the tool register of Open Group. 

Their technical support is not good in India. I wrote to them because I had a question, but I never got an answer. So, I just left it behind.

I've been using this solution for the last three years for my class.

It is stable.

I have not used it for large projects, but I have asked Sparx people whether it can have multi-faring and configuration management, and they said yes. 

I am the main trainer of my organization, and I am the only one who is using it.

Their technical support is not good in India. It could be better. I wrote an email to the support, but I didn't get a response. I did not call them and pursue it too much because my need was not professional. My need was more education-based. It is good for my use, and I'm able to fill the time in my class with topics. 

It is easy to install. You just execute an MSF file, and it is implemented quickly. It took a maximum of three minutes.

I did it myself. I did not take the help of any technical team of Sparx EA.

It is very economical and low cost. You have to pay for a one-time license, and it is active forever.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate it a six out of 10.

Mostly, we are using the solution around the IT department. We use it for functional analysis. That said, I have also tried for two years to use it more in business cases.

The variety of diagrams available is excellent. 

You are able to combine different diagrams together and to use a UML component in a different diagram, for example. It's quite flexible. 

The initial setup was pretty easy.

The solution is scalable. 

We have found the stability to be very reliable.

The solution is affordable. 

The user interface is not so good. It's not easy for someone to use it at first. The product takes some getting used to.

In the next update, I would like to see more integration with databases in the cloud. For example, Amazon. I'd like that mostly to plug the Sparx tool above any Azure database or Amazon database in the cloud. 

You do need to set up something separate in order to broadcast or share information. That's not so easy to do with the product itself. 

I've used the solution for 14 years at this point. It's been well over a decade. 

While we have had performance issues in the past, it was mostly due to the database we had chosen a few years ago. We've since moved over to another one and now it's really good.

We have 25 people in our company that directly deal with this product.

The solution is very easy to scale. It's no problem at all. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

I used technical support maybe two years ago for the first time. Mostly, I look online and all around for discussion articles. I have to say that Sparx has a lot of documentation and articles and user groups that users can just dig into and find information. I just asked a question a few years ago about a possible feature that I wanted to see in the next version. It wasn't really for troubleshooting.

The first setup was 14 years ago, and therefore it has been a long time. However, it is very easy and not overly difficult. 

The maintenance involved is all about the database. We moved from an old database to a newer one. However, that's it. There is no maintenance, events, or tasks to schedule regularly.

We did not need a vendor to assist us. We did not use a consultant or integrator. We implemented the solution ourselves and we were able to configure it in-house as well. 

I'm just a customer and an end-user. 

The pricing is reasonable. It's not overly expensive. The price to quality ratio is very good. 

Extra costs are mostly related to the training part. The tool is not very user-friendly. Most of my time is around training new users around UML and organizing the information. There are too many ways to use the tool and to organize, and a couple of guidelines are very essential to keep the value up. Training is very important and useful.

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

I'm currently using the latest version of the solution at this time. I can't speak to the exact version number, however.

I would definitively recommend the solution to any IT department as it's very cheap and very powerful. However, it is not very user-friendly. It's a modeling tool, and modeling is not very popular typically. That said, you can scale it to fit the requisite departments.