We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

What needs improvement with iGrafx?


Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with iGrafx.

What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?

ITCS user
55 Answers

author avatar
Top 10Real User

If the price of the solution was more competitive, it would have made things easier for our company to extend the usage. Because we are mostly Microsoft-oriented, there are people more inclined towards Visio than iGrafx. I'd like to see additional features such as a multi-language option which is currently only possible if you publish in Java. I'm publishing in HTML and it's not possible to use multi-language. The same applies concerning the ability to increase and decrease size which would provide extra functionality when publishing. If you're not in the cloud and you're a single user, these things would make a difference.

author avatar
Real User

In the next release, I would like to see more layers like three, four, and five. It might be possible but I haven't seen it yet.

author avatar
Top 20Real User

There is room for improvement in the printability of the flows. The workflow or the shape — if I'm working on a cross-functional, multi swim-lane workflow — can sometimes get very big, and it's not easy to have a printable and readable version. This is a big problem, so I have to print it on an extremely big A3. Something that is found in Visio but is not found in iGrafx, or at least I haven't found it, is that it allows me to have a multi-page or multi-sheet process. I'm able to split a process across many pages rather than having one big process on a page. I can link between these pages with an off-page reference. Also, dragging and dropping shapes is not as user-friendly as in Visio. In Visio, it's very easy to work with shapes and in very few minutes you can plot a whole, multi swim-lane, cross-functional process. In just a few minutes or within an hour you can make one that is very complicated. Or, during a meeting, you can do one in Visio without being distracted by the complexity. In iGrafx, that part is not that easy. iGrafx can produce very sophisticated workflows that can cover a lot of detail. This sophistication is not always bad, but it's not always good. Finally, one more problem that I hate with iGrafx is that the format of the files or the flows is usually in an extension called igx. igx is very a very specific format that I can't access or deal with except in iGrafx. If I'm going to edit these workflows in Visio later on, I have to use a converter. I've only found one converter, in all the online forums, to convert an igx file to a Visio file. And it's another cost, of course. You have to pay for it. So if you are using iGrafx and decide at any point that it's not meeting your expectations, you have to pay for this converter, and not only the cost for the new software. The output from iGrafx should be in a format that's more accepted by other kinds of software that deal with the workflows.

author avatar
Real User

It would be helpful to be able to do more analytics and generate reports on historical documents that have already been uploaded to the server. I would like to see better communication between the sensor process team and the end users.

author avatar

I would love to see a template and shapes for customer journey mapping.

Find out what your peers are saying about iGrafx, Microsoft, Software AG and others in Business Process Design. Updated: September 2021.
542,267 professionals have used our research since 2012.