We performed a comparison between iServer and No Magic MagicDraw based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Design solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The initial setup is easy."
"The solution has wide use within Microsoft products. The integration with Microsoft products, and, in particular, Microsoft Office, is great."
"iServer has valuable features for workflow and document management."
"Integrating the Microsoft documents to the product and visualization matrix where we can see the end-to-end relationship of the network is of great importance to our company."
"The product has a valuable customized model."
"The solution is easily modified to suit your needs."
"This is a flexible tool compared to some other solutions."
"Tech support is very responsive. They solved issues within a prompt response time."
"I like the traceability feature. Whoever is working with the product would be sure of the things that could be affected if they decided to affect one of the other companies. For example, let's say that an engineer starts a new project optimization problem by adjusting the thickness of metal sheets. However, the engineers only see a reduced number of affections, but when we use the requirement traceability, they can see the whole picture. That's the main aspect that we were promoting with this tool."
"The beauty of MagicDraw is that it has a simulation part, so you can simulate your model to validate it. The simulation allows you to bring in code off of an external code that you can write to set up the simulation and execute the code."
"The most valuable features are the visibility, standard compliance, and interface."
"The MBFC capability of MagicDraw is higher than the other competitors."
"I think one of the key things is the plugins for integration with requirements management tools like Doors"
"The technical support is very good."
"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."
"No Magic has the tools and capability to model a complete enterprise and all product lines."
"The performance is slow, which is something that should be improved."
"I haven't used this solution long enough to know what areas could be improved."
"The modelling needs improvement, specifically forecasting capabilities and scenarios."
"It definitely needs help to improve the visual aspect of the solution."
"We could allocate permissions to use only specific components to the users rather than the entire instance."
"The one issue is that if you want to import predefined work, you need to put the licensing model in. So if you wanted to import work that was done before, you then need to buy a separate product for that."
"More visualization techniques and ways to report the data might be helpful."
"It runs relatively slowly."
"There are some technical features that you have to study and do research on to be able to understand."
"The licenses are expensive compared to similar tools. At the moment, the user is open to using MagicDraw if it's 15% more than other solutions. If it were to cost any more, they wouldn't use it."
"They don't really support code engineering, and that's why we have to move to Enterprise Architect. MagicDraw is stuck at C++03 standards, whereas most C++ programs today want to use the latest definition of the C++ standards. We were at C++11, and we wanted to do code engineering with C++11 or 17, but they didn't support it. That pushed us into a different tool, which is Sparx Enterprise Architect."
"The cost of upgrading the product should be lower."
"It would be better if the User Interface were updated. At the moment, it's a classic environment. It reminds me of the old Windows interface, for example, Windows 95. It would be better to make it more user-friendly. It would also be better if it could integrate with SAP solutions. It isn't easy to find experts in the field. It's hard to find people around the globe that have the necessary skills and expertise to manage this solution. For example, in our case, we needed someone with refrigeration knowledge that also knew how to use the tool, and that was a challenge. We also had issues relating to erasing. Sometimes, it kept it in the background and didn't erase it at all. We had to review the entire list to ensure that the item was deleted."
"The technical support is not very good."
"The documentation for MagicDraw and the video tutorials compared to other competitors is an area for improvement."
"There's lots of documentation. They process multiples of guides. They've got all kinds of guides and documentation out there, but it's kind of hard to find. There are a lot of videos. You can go to YouTube and find videos on how it's been used in different ways, but it just kind of scratches the surface."
iServer is ranked 13th in Business Process Design with 15 reviews while No Magic MagicDraw is ranked 9th in Business Process Design with 17 reviews. iServer is rated 7.2, while No Magic MagicDraw is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of iServer writes "Enables flexible parameters for any process model and has a valuable document management feature ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of No Magic MagicDraw writes "Pretty easy to use and versatile, but doesn't support code engineering and can be overly complicated at times". iServer is most compared with LeanIX, Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, Visio, ARIS BPA and MEGA HOPEX, whereas No Magic MagicDraw is most compared with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, Visio, Visual Paradigm, Lucidchart and erwin Data Modeler by Quest. See our No Magic MagicDraw vs. iServer report.
See our list of best Business Process Design vendors.
We monitor all Business Process Design 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.