Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect Reviews

I want a solution that can interface with Jira and Confluence, both of which my customers have, as well as with that of Bizagi.

A feature I like most about Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is its ease of use. 

My customers use Bizagi, although I do not. I don't want to change this. What should be improved, however, are the integration capabilities of the solution with Bizagi. 

I work with IBM in enterprise architecture as the project manager. I used to use IBM Rational System Architect. I can now see as a consultant what I am able to offer the customer, not only that of IBM, of course. I am currently seeking solutions other than IBM. 

I previously used other tools, such as IBM's enterprise architect, although the tool has since been sold and the company changed. The IBM tool offers certain customization features which are not found in Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, although I can live with what it has at the moment. 

Since all the staff is already trained in Bizagi and find it easy to use, I do not wish to change this, but only to load all the processes from it to Sparx. This is my approach. 

The Bizagi model is only for process. It is not an enterprise architect tool. Only Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, but not Bizagi, allows one to make diagrams and metrics, to examine the relationship between all the elements.

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.

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.

• Data Modeling (conceptual modeling)
• XML schema design
• We use it to develop and maintain the Enterprise Conceptual Model, migrated from erwin a couple of years ago.

We used Sparx EA to document CCAR data lineage in response to an OCC MRA filing.

• Greater OMG UML and XMI compliance
• Better reporting

We have been using this solution for five years.

No problems with stability. It is a rock solid product, unlike erwin, which was unstable.

There were no issues with scalability. It handled increased volume easily, unlike erwin.

I would rate technical support as OK. The forum was great. The actual support was only so-so.

We used erwin. Erwin was unstable and didn't handle the model as the size grew.

The setup was straightforward.

The Corporate Edition, or one of the bundles, is the way to go. You don't save that much going with the personal or profession editions.

We evaluated MagicDraw.

Just get it. My elevator pitch was that it is cheaper than Visio and it provides a common tool and repository for all your development needs. Amazing solution for its price, but has its flaws.

Outside of the diagram and project repository at an affordable prices the actual features included UML and re-engineering to build up documentation on existing code bases and databases for my clients. Later it became the ability to customize and support client and industry frameworks – the tools coverage. Now it is being able to support Enterprise level Architecture across all the domains from business to technology.

XMI Import and Export – allows for rapid extraction of model fragment to support reusable assets and model element transfer to other tools & platforms.

Using the products scripting and namespace management has allowed for the expression of business models (level 1 - 4) for a government agency that provided a ‘tipping point’ for enterprise architecture acceptance. The span of coverage and consistent traceability for view point presentation allows client teams access to continually maintained building block catalogues and alignment with the business models.

More control over diagram layout and stylization and the use of layout templates to allow for consistent model view presentation to consumers. This would include improved control of generated HTML views and SVG products and enhanced shape management.

Tagged value and stereotype management – these two UML features offer a lot of control and flexibility over model element treatment and provide benefit to power users.

Needs support for Executive level diagramming for rolling up details back to concept.

We've been using it since 2001.

We had no issues with the deployment.

The only stability concern I encountered was it not recognising that my laptop has limited resources especially as diagram complexity increases.

We have had no issues scaling it for our needs.

My personal experience is that Enterprise Architect has a large user community that shares well. As well the direct line support from Sparx Systems is consistent; product knowledgeable; seems to be acceptably responsive and works to resolve the identified issue.

I have used many computer assisted software engineering a model driven architecture tools including some I developed for military application. The list includes Excellator, Uniface, Power Designer, Oracle Designer, Rational Rose, and Software through Pictures, System Architect, Protégé, Microsoft Visio, Eclipse, Visual Studio, and Oxygen.

I use this because of it's low cost per seat, ease of use, MOF/UML based namespace control, high level of standardized notational support, and portability.

Very straightforward – download executable, select repository type, apply the license, and go to work.

Implementation is straight-forward but if this is for a group or large community then having an experienced database administrator and support resources in stewardship roles definitely help. Implementation of product like Sparx Enterprise Architect into Enterprise level Architecture practises usually warrants the establishment of principles practises and procedures to provide governance and support expected results. Tools are only what you make of them.

My ROI was well within the acceptable range for a small engineering firm.

Initially we were able to deploy to 15 end users for less than $5,000. Use of floating licensing provides for acceptable coverage at a lower per user cost.

If you are looking for something to just get the job done that does not box you in, then this product is for you, if you are looking for something more, this product grows with you and can address your incremental needs. If you are looking for a rapid implementation repository for projects that can contribute to an overall enterprise approach I think this product greatly helps with the caveat that it is the basis of a buy and build up approach. Lots of add on lend to the enterprise solution.

The above diagram was the basis as a context for architectural capability for a recent client it covers areas that have been implemented around a Sparx based tool set.

The diagram above demonstrates the product’s ability to support Governments of Canada Strategic Reference Model (GSRM) Services Integration and Accountability Model (SIAM) resulting from GRSM Service Pattern Analysis.

We use it mainly for enterprise and business architecture including application landscape and interface landscape. In some instances, we use it for business processes and roadmapping. 

I am not a big fan of using Sparx. The interface is not user-friendly and is outdated. For example, it is not possible to only open a view you've created or to open one project at a time instead of the entire package.

I'm not looking into expanding the use of Enterprise Architect, but I'm looking into replacing it.

It has been a useful tool for modeling and testing automated processes. 

It would be beneficial to incorporate features like document management usage of video models or PowerPoint visuals that you can import and easily use, instead of having to buy extended modules. When collaborating with other people, it needs to be more user-friendly. I cannot get businesses to use enterprise architect as it is too complicated for them. 

Our organization has used this solution for three years. 

The stability of this solution depends on the availability of the license server. If this connection is set up properly, the stability is okay. It does take a long time to load model projects.

It was straightforward. It involved connecting to the license server and deploying the solution. 

It was deployed within two weeks.

We purchased it once off for 1200 euros. If we want to build integrations with other systems such as Word or SharePoint, we would need to pay approximately 300 euros for this. 

Sparx is a good tool for extended usage such as modeling or automated testing. It allows you to do good testing upfront. If the only intention is to use it for architecture modeling and visuals, it may not be the best solution. 

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. 

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.

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.