We performed a comparison between QualiWare X and Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Architecture Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I like the solution's traceability."
"A feature I like most about Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is its ease of use."
"Large variety of profiles and frameworks available out-of-the-box without the need for customization."
"The stability has been good and satisfactory. I would rate the stability a ten out of ten."
"It has led some teams to do better code reviews - to be less focussed on coding conventions (syntax) and more focussed on the semantics because of the abstraction level clear design affords."
"Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect was easy to set up and it took just twenty minutes."
"It is a handy tool for visual modeling that provides opportunities for analysis, design, and support of models using ArchiMate, UML."
"The TOGAF ADM model is most valuable. It is also very cheap as compared to other options in the market."
"The profiles allow me to customize the tool to the corporate environment instead of the other way around saving huge amounts of time and energy on trying to turn dozens of individuals into TOGAF, ArchiMate or Zachman experts, or even Sparx EA experts."
"The solution is not easy and intuitive to use. I would also like the software to have a reference metamodel that can guide the modeling."
"The stability and performance of Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect could still be improved. Setup for it is also slightly complicated and could be improved."
"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."
"More challenging than other tools to maintain documents and document versions for an architecture board review."
"No way to implement data integrity and referential integrity constraints."
"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."
"When collaborating with other people, it needs to be more user-friendly."
"What should be improved are the integration capabilities of the solution with Bizagi."
"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."
More Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect Pricing and Cost Advice →
QualiWare X is ranked 23rd in Enterprise Architecture Management with 3 reviews while Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Architecture Management with 97 reviews. QualiWare X is rated 7.6, while Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of QualiWare X writes "Works as a reference for architecture but not very intuitive ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect writes "Easy to set up and had no issues with stability, but it's not a very friendly tool, and its database modeling and entity-relationship modeling functions need improvement". QualiWare X is most compared with ARIS Cloud and Avolution ABACUS, whereas Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is most compared with Visual Paradigm, Visio, No Magic MagicDraw, Lucidchart and LeanIX. See our QualiWare X vs. Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect report.
See our list of best Enterprise Architecture Management vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Architecture Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.