Chief Refrigeration Product Development Division at Indurama
Real User
Top 20
2023-01-31T21:47:24Z
Jan 31, 2023
I would tell potential users to do extensive research on model-based system engineering and its related aspects. They should probably get some training because that's the only way to understand the product's potential fully. On a scale from one to ten, I would give No Magic MagicDraw a nine.
In my 25 years of engineering, I could have used different aspects of it in any program. It is a large tool, and it is pretty versatile, but it can be overly complicated at times. So, having a good frame of reference and a direction is helpful. The tool itself isn't going to guide you on the best practices and best decisions, but there are many different best practices out there. It is a good tool. I would rate it a solid seven out of ten.
Director, Strategy and Consulting at a university with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
2021-05-21T17:15:27Z
May 21, 2021
Before you start implementing No Magic MagicDraw, I would definitely recommend that you look at other solutions. You could take a look at Sparks and compare both Sparks and MagicDraw before you proceed with MagicDraw.
I would rate MagicDraw a nine out of ten because of the price. Enterprise Architect has a lot of bugs and MagicDraw is a lot more accurate and flexible. It's a level better.
Adjunct Professor at a university with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
2020-07-19T08:15:39Z
Jul 19, 2020
I am a sole proprietor consultant and I work within teams that are a mix of contractors and government employees. Also, I am an adjunct professor. My advice goes back to the 80/20 rule. There is 20% of the basic fundamental capabilities that you will get you 80% of what you need or more. My advice is to have a standard framework for a model within the enterprise. In terms of a standard hierarchy structure, know where you put the requirements or the logical architecture. Also, know how it changes depending on whether you are dealing with a system or with a system's assistance. The system's assistance depends on whether you have a directed governance environment or a federal, or coalition of the willing. Because of the issues, I am experiencing with the OMG, I would rate this solution a five out of ten.
I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. I know there are some little nuisances here and there. Still, it works. I've had good success with it. It's got a lot of capability. It's just a little pricey. On the market right now, there is a lot of software out there that's pretty pricey, and many out there that are a lot more expensive. Like ARIS, for example.
Expert System Engineer at a transportation company with 51-200 employees
Real User
2020-04-19T07:40:32Z
Apr 19, 2020
My advice to anybody who is designing complex projects, like defense projects or space projects, is that they have to use this program or one like it. All of the stakeholders have to understand that they need to review the product using models, in addition to the documents. Following this will ensure that it is very easy to understand the product that is being designed. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.
Principal Systems Engineer at a tech services company with 1-10 employees
Real User
Top 20
2020-04-19T07:40:00Z
Apr 19, 2020
I would advise someone considering this solution to do a proof of concept. Ensure that your engineers have training, not just in the tool, but also in the language they're going to language speaking. I would rate it an eight out of ten.
We are the largest MagicDraw user in Hungary. It's good software, but there is little to no market penetration. People don't know about it or use it. Where is the revenue of the software? There has to be more awareness as Enterprise Architects. The design itself is nothing. Design with consulting is something, but design with confirmation and consulting is the real product. This is the message; without confirmation, there is no product. My advice is to import the design into Confluence, put in the effort through discussion, review it, redesign it again, and then it should work. The business is important for MagicDraw, but the vendors are as well. Because I can design, but I cannot sell it, I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
Magic Draw has capabilities that I'm sure I haven't even touched on, but at least for what I'm attempting to achieve, it provides the most capability to meet my needs at this point in time.
No Magic MagicDraw is a versatile solution designed to enable users to work on everything from business processes to architecture or software and system modeling.
No Magic MagicDraw is an extremely robust solution that is designed for a range of professionals. This product is invaluable to business analysts, software analysts, programmers, QA engineers, and documentation writers. It is a highly dynamic and versatile tool that can aid in the analysis and design of Object Oriented (OO)...
I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.
I rate No Magic MagicDraw a nine out of ten.
I would definitely recommend using the solution. Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten.
I would tell potential users to do extensive research on model-based system engineering and its related aspects. They should probably get some training because that's the only way to understand the product's potential fully. On a scale from one to ten, I would give No Magic MagicDraw a nine.
In my 25 years of engineering, I could have used different aspects of it in any program. It is a large tool, and it is pretty versatile, but it can be overly complicated at times. So, having a good frame of reference and a direction is helpful. The tool itself isn't going to guide you on the best practices and best decisions, but there are many different best practices out there. It is a good tool. I would rate it a solid seven out of ten.
Before you start implementing No Magic MagicDraw, I would definitely recommend that you look at other solutions. You could take a look at Sparks and compare both Sparks and MagicDraw before you proceed with MagicDraw.
On a scale of one to ten, I would give No Magic MagicDraw a nine. Overall I find it very effective and the customers are happy with it.
I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.
I would rate MagicDraw a nine out of ten because of the price. Enterprise Architect has a lot of bugs and MagicDraw is a lot more accurate and flexible. It's a level better.
I am a sole proprietor consultant and I work within teams that are a mix of contractors and government employees. Also, I am an adjunct professor. My advice goes back to the 80/20 rule. There is 20% of the basic fundamental capabilities that you will get you 80% of what you need or more. My advice is to have a standard framework for a model within the enterprise. In terms of a standard hierarchy structure, know where you put the requirements or the logical architecture. Also, know how it changes depending on whether you are dealing with a system or with a system's assistance. The system's assistance depends on whether you have a directed governance environment or a federal, or coalition of the willing. Because of the issues, I am experiencing with the OMG, I would rate this solution a five out of ten.
I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. I know there are some little nuisances here and there. Still, it works. I've had good success with it. It's got a lot of capability. It's just a little pricey. On the market right now, there is a lot of software out there that's pretty pricey, and many out there that are a lot more expensive. Like ARIS, for example.
My advice to anybody who is designing complex projects, like defense projects or space projects, is that they have to use this program or one like it. All of the stakeholders have to understand that they need to review the product using models, in addition to the documents. Following this will ensure that it is very easy to understand the product that is being designed. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.
I would advise someone considering this solution to do a proof of concept. Ensure that your engineers have training, not just in the tool, but also in the language they're going to language speaking. I would rate it an eight out of ten.
We are the largest MagicDraw user in Hungary. It's good software, but there is little to no market penetration. People don't know about it or use it. Where is the revenue of the software? There has to be more awareness as Enterprise Architects. The design itself is nothing. Design with consulting is something, but design with confirmation and consulting is the real product. This is the message; without confirmation, there is no product. My advice is to import the design into Confluence, put in the effort through discussion, review it, redesign it again, and then it should work. The business is important for MagicDraw, but the vendors are as well. Because I can design, but I cannot sell it, I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
Magic Draw has capabilities that I'm sure I haven't even touched on, but at least for what I'm attempting to achieve, it provides the most capability to meet my needs at this point in time.