We performed a comparison between Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect and UNICOM System Architect based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about LeanIX, Sparx Systems, erwin by Quest and others in Enterprise Architecture Management."It provides good utilization and it's a convenient tool for building exact architectural work."
"The Business Process Modeling or BPM part is the most valuable. Its ability to simulate scenarios is also very useful. It can also create descriptions of the workflows. It has a feature in which if you create some BPMN process, a workflow diagram, and the description inside, you can actually simulate the whole scenario, and you get the description. That's very handy."
"Its ability to reference and link to components from any diagram."
"Customizable and tailored to the environment. Several template frameworks are provided."
"We could capture the process models around 24 countries with all their local variations."
"The TOGAF ADM model is most valuable. It is also very cheap as compared to other options in the market."
"The initial setup is easy."
"It is simple to build the first model for the solution."
"It has good end-to-end metamodel interrelationships."
"It is useful for creating build-outs and architecture views and for publishing reports and stuff like that for different programs."
"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 presentation graphics need to be improved in future builds."
"There used to be that feature in ArchiMate Modeling of Enterprise Architect called inherited relationships. Now it's gone."
"Not visually appealing."
"When many users are accessing the system at the same time, Sparx slows down. It can't easily support a large team."
"The modeling tool is targeted toward a sophisticated user."
"There should be a MATLAB-specific toolbox added to the solution with better compatibility. The connections currently are good but in the future, it needs a huge improvement."
"The UI could be improved and made a little bit more presentable."
"They need to add reports that show the enterprise architecture perspectives, and the dashboards should be comfortable for the senior enterprise architects so that they can view the complete landscape."
"I don't use the tool or know a lot. It is going to have some shortcomings. When it comes down to publishing, we just found out this week that they actually have a publisher add-on. So, what we were trying to publish was not giving a detailed report about the architecture, views, etc. I just wish they had sent these to UNICOM and contacted them about add-on features for the publishing part of the tool."
More Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Architecture Management with 97 reviews while UNICOM System Architect is ranked 25th in Enterprise Architecture Management. Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is rated 8.0, while UNICOM System Architect is rated 6.0. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of UNICOM System Architect writes "Useful for creating build-outs and architecture views, but requires a publisher add-on for some detailed reports". Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is most compared with Visual Paradigm, Visio, No Magic MagicDraw, Lucidchart and LeanIX, whereas UNICOM System Architect is most compared with IBM Rational System Architect.
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.
