No Magic MagicDraw Reviews

I deal with DOD lifecycle acquisition sorts of things as some of the main use cases currently, and I expect to continue using it for more than 25 years.

The most valuable features with No Magic MagicDraw are its ease of use; you can put this in front of a 12-year-old and they would know what to do right away.

I'm able to work with Teamwork Cloud where everybody is operating out of the same database. In some cases, you can see what is developing in real time. You also have the capability of communicating through other tools such as Teamcenter or Polarion. Of course, to use those tools, you need a CAMEO connector with those, unless you're going to go the route of creating an API to do that.

For CAMEO, it's not only the ease of use, it's versatility, its communicability, but Rhapsody is the worst tool I've ever used. It is very difficult, not user-friendly, and very expensive. It works only with its IBM counterparts. SPARX Enterprise Architecture is very easy to use, but it's limited.

It gives you an idea of how your model is developing, so this feature helps maintain integrity or correctness of system models. It's really a good feature to have. You've got to have the simulation toolkit installed to be able to do that, and that works really well. The MagicDraw or CAMEO system is good on its own, but it should be integrated and should come out of the box with the simulation toolkit because there are some things you can't do without it, making it very difficult to have to look for another license to be able to do that. I would prefer that it come with the simulation toolkit.

I have dealt with this solution for probably about 25 years.

Their customer service and technical support is better than most. I would rate it as a seven or eight in customer service. There are some issues that have been resolved very quickly and some other things that are slower. For instance, the Rhapsody or IBM tools rate at about a three or a two. CAMEO's service is quite good if you develop a relationship with them and you're buying their tools.

Positive

I deal with model-based systems engineering tools, so I have experience with enterprise architecture management tools.

I have experience with No Magic MagicDraw, as I deal with other solutions too.

I did utilize the real-time model validation feature in No Magic MagicDraw.

I don't use the extensive visualization capabilities to design static structure diagrams or behavioral diagrams or other items.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate No Magic MagicDraw an 8.

I was using No Magic MagicDraw to model operations, such as using different kinds of operations with ships or crafts and other systems.

No Magic MagicDraw facilitated great communication within the team and allowed for the exploration of different designs and architectures, which was beneficial for our design space exploration.

Some of No Magic MagicDraw's most valuable features were its integration with other simulation tools, such as MATLAB, the seasonal plugin, and the Rangel simulation toolkit.

I don't think there are areas that need improvement.

I used No Magic MagicDraw for almost four years.

I didn't have to use their support, however, there is a great community behind the tool.

Positive

I used IBM Rational Rhapsody and Capella, an open-source tool, before using No Magic MagicDraw. No Magic MagicDraw was easier to find documentation for and was more user-friendly.

The initial setup was not straightforward. That said, there were many tutorials and materials available online.

In my team, three people were working with No Magic MagicDraw.

Maybe the price is a little bit high for a small company to acquire this tool. However, they offer trial versions and trial licenses for members of INCOSE.

I used IBM Rational Rhapsody and Capella before switching to No Magic MagicDraw. No Magic MagicDraw was more user-friendly and had better online documentation.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We are using it to implement a modern approach in our company's engineering processes. We function as a working group, employing it for a pilot project to establish a model-based engineering process within our company.

I really like the support system of MagicDraw. There are no open case issues with its support services. It is very user-friendly, and the customer service is really good. 

One potential area for improvement is the recommendation feature. At times, we face challenges in locating specific features, and we have to reach out for assistance in finding the information we need.

So, the recommendation could be enhanced.

I have been using this solution for more than a year, but I was familiar with it for about five years before that.

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. It's rock-solid. We haven't encountered any issues in recent times.

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. It is pretty easy to scale. 

Currently, we hold four licenses, and we're employing about sixty of them. Initially, we procured ten licenses, but we plan to scale up to more users in the near future.

The customer service and support are very good. Overall, it's been quite satisfactory. The response time is good, usually taking one or two working days. So, there is room for improvement in response time. It is not very long, but it could be better.

Positive

The initial setup is actually quite simple. In my previous role, I did the setup process, working with the program team and server configurations. 

However, at my new company, the IT department handles the setup. This has made the process even easier and more streamlined compared to my previous experiences.

In terms of pricing, I would rate it around seven, where one is a high price and ten is a low price.  

I would definitely recommend using the solution. Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

We use it to build the physical/logical domains to hold requirements, specifications, use cases, and all the way down to class definitions.

We're using version 19 or 20. I have a version of MagicDraw installed on my local PC, but all of our models are centrally located.

It is pretty easy to use. It is pretty versatile.

It is pretty versatile, but that versatility also brings some complications. Sometimes, it can be overly complicated to do some trivial things. It would be helpful if they gave you some best practices in their toolset.

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.

I have been using this solution for three or four years.

It is like any tool. It has bugs. We fly through some of the bugs.

In terms of using multiple programs and scaling your models appropriately, the tool is pretty large, and you can go in many different directions. It is not straightforward, and it is not intuitive on how to directly scale things because you can make decisions at a low level that affect multiple paths for scaling that aren't readily available. You don't really understand them until you try to scale.

In terms of its users, our software team and our scientists are using it for a couple of different programs. In terms of maintenance, our team doesn't do the maintenance for it. Our company performs maintenance.

They were okay. I dealt with them specifically around the code engineering aspects of it, but upgrading their ability to do code engineering was not in their roadmap, which was a bit frustrating.

The code engineering portion seems intuitive. Just like Sparx, it is not that difficult, but the problem is that if you want to take advantage of the latest C++ standards, MagicDraw doesn't support it.

It was in our roadmap to do model-based systems engineering. It was a pretty well-used tool. So, we just picked it up because of the requirements of the program.

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.

We use No Magic MagicDraw for modeling systems.

The product is user-friendly. There is a lot of documentation available on the Internet to understand its functionality.

The product is very expensive. There could be a trial version for students. It will be helpful.

The initial setup process is pretty straightforward.

I rate the pricing a ten out of ten. It is an expensive product compared to software for model-based system engineering.

I rate No Magic MagicDraw a nine out of ten.

I used Magic MagicDraw for structured refrigeration systems.

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.

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.

I have used Magic MagicDraw over the last year. The methodology used was MBSE or model-based system engineering.

Magic MagicDraw is a stable solution. We didn't have any issues during our tests.

Magic MagicDraw is a scalable solution.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give scalability a ten.

Technical support is efficient, but their response time could be better.

The initial setup is straightforward. It was installed on a single, shareable license, and it took about three to four months to deploy this solution.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give the initial setup a nine.

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.

I use No Magic MagicDraw, but Cameo is the system engineering tool. I'm a system engineer, and I use No Magic MagicDraw for system architecture, requirement management, system simulation, and threat studies.

We use a framework related to system engineering called MagicGrid.

The most valuable feature of No Magic MagicDraw is the simulation capabilities and interface.

The price of the solution could be reduced.

I have been using No Magic MagicDraw for approximately seven years.

I rate the stability of No Magic MagicDraw a seven out of ten.

We have approximately 300 people using this solution in my large company.

I rate the scalability of No Magic MagicDraw a seven out of ten.

I have used PTC Integrity and Eac. I did not switch from using these two solutions to No Magic MagicDraw, they all have different use cases.

The initial setup of No Magic MagicDraw is simple. The deployment took approximately three days.

I rate the initial setup of No Magic MagicDraw an eight out of ten.

The price of No Magic MagicDraw could improve. The price of the solution is too expensive for smaller-sized companies. There should be a better pricing model.

I rate the price of No Magic MagicDraw a six out of ten.

I recommend this solution to others.

I rate No Magic MagicDraw an eight out of ten.

We use it for model based system engineering (MDSE).

I think one of the key things is the plugins for integration with requirements management tools like Doors. I think this is very helpful.

No Magic MagicDraw provides a lot of good features on functionality.

The documentation for MagicDraw and the video tutorials compared to those of the other companies are really a big area for improvement.

The other area would be having some profiles and ready-to-use patterns. It's something that is missing in MagicDraw compared to that in other tools. I think that it would be very helpful to have such profiles and ready-to-use patterns that would kickstart any architecture asset.

Licensing is expensive for this solution.

I believe that the overall UX needs to be completely reformed. The UI UX of the tool is not really user-friendly.

I've been using MagicDraw for probably three years now.

Our experience with technical support was positive. They responded in 24 to 48 hours.

I think the overall setup was very straightforward and easy; nothing was really complex. It took a minimal amount of time given that it's on-premises.

I did the deployment myself.

The licensing is on a yearly basis, and it's expensive. This is one of the qualms of this solution, and that's one of the reasons why we're not going to continue using it.

I would rate it at seven on scale from one to ten because it's still a good tool. It provides a lot of good features on functionality but still has room for improvement.

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.

The primary use case of this solution is for modeling and collaboration.

The most valuable feature is the amount of flexibility that one has to model, which is great for an individual. But it becomes a problem when you're trying to collaborate within a team. It is not a strongly coupled tool.

I dabble with the OMG (object management group) in terms of definitions of standard. OMG is now working on SysML version 2.0 and there is significant work that needs to be done to eliminate some of the ambiguities and foibles in the standard itself.

The user interface could have better quality tutorials. When I go to the manual, I can hyperlink along, but there are subtleties that you literally have to find by trying and doing.

One of the issues I am currently experiencing is with one of my environments. I use a Windows environment and a Mac environment. When I am working with my Mac and I right-click to copy and paste, it doesn't work. 

I find myself going back to the old control characters like Ctrl-C to copy and Ctrl-V to paste. Also, some of the ways that one can create elements and move more at a hierarchy in the model of view and the browser, don't work. I finally found an approach that has worked. 

In the next release, it would be better to have cleaner manuals that lead people along in a simpler way.

I have been an occasional user of No Magic MagicDraw for approximately five years.

We are running two different versions at the moment. One is version 18.5 and the other is version 19.

This solution is stable. I have not experienced any glitches and nothing has crashed that I haven't been the cause of.

This is a scalable tool. It's very flexible and all of the stereotypes that you can select or add, for example, we call it the 80/20 rule, where 20% of the tool usage gets you to 80% of the capabilities you need. 

I have not had the need to contact technical support.

Previously, I used the Sparx Enterprise Architect. I still use it on occasion.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We have an in-house team to maintain this solution.

For one of them, we had a government administrator to set it up. I did the other one myself.

I am not aware of the costs, as this solution is offered to me by the clients.

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 use CAE software to support my consulting practice.  I'm an independent consultant and I use it with my clients primarily for business transformation projects - define, assess and re-design business architecture to either prepare for ERP projects or to improve existing business practices. When I use the term business architecture, I'm primarily talking about looking at corporate strategy, business organizational structure, business process designs, and IT & Software architecture.  

The No Magic CAE tool enables me to provide my clients with an interactive solution that can be used to analyze current business architecture and make modifications to support new future state designs.

When you look at it, No Magic is an all-encompassing tool. You can use it for business architecture design. You can use it for deploying an ERP system across your enterprise, for managing new product development from cradle to grave. However, it's my understanding that No Magic CAE was initially designed and developed for model-based systems engineering and has grown to incorporate business architecture design and modeling capabilities. It takes away the mounds of paper and puts it into a model. It enables you to generate a digital model of your product or service solution that can be ran through simulations and tested before you spend a single penny on bending metal or configuring a new ERP software application. This can result in massive cost savings.

Having standard symbology is very important in the modeling industry.  The No Magic suite of products follows the Object Management Group (OMG) standards for modeling.

No Magic has an annual symposium in Allen, Texas, at what used to be their corporate headquarters location.  It's a very big event where you can learn a lot about how companies are using their software to more efficiently design and deploy new product and service solutions.  I had the opportunity to meet company executives and representatives from across the globe at their event back n 2015. Having the opportunity to observe some live demonstrations as it happened was very informative.

The software is a little more challenging if you haven't been trained on how to use it.  No Magic has developed many guides and documents to assist your learning effort, but it doesn't replace that good ole fashion hands-on classroom training.  With No Magic, you are basically give a blank canvas then you choose the modeling perspective you are going to use for your model.  

To me, one of the one of the big keys to understanding the modeling environment, is understanding and knowing what perspectives and tools to use and where due to the fact that there are tons of ways that you can model something. While there is not necessarily a right or wrong way to modeling, you need a standard approach, but you still don't use all the tools that are necessarily available in that set. It can get confusing.

When you go into creating a model, you select the perspective you want to use.  However, if you crossover perspectives, as I sometimes do, to get to different modeling elements, I have had problems with my symbology changing without being able to reverse it.  I thinks there are opportunities for improvement and will be for some time to come.  But I believe that at some point in the future, the modeling symbology will be more standardize across the various modeling perspectives.  

One of the biggest problems with model-based systems engineering is that there just isn't enough training. There are certain colleges beginning to introduce it and use it in the classroom. There's just not been a whole lot of training out there for it like there is in a lot of other areas.

I started using the No Magic Cameo Enterprise Architecture (CAE) solution in 2015.

Without being repetitive, I consider the solution to be rather stable.  Just the cross over between model perspectives can cause some hiccups.  

The good thing, in terms of scalability, is that you can have multiple people working on the same model through a teamwork server which enables you share models and you can have multiple people interacting on the same model. 

I do know that multiple federal agencies across DoD -- Army, Navy, and Air Force, as well as NASA are beginning to recognize the potential cost and schedule savings that can be achieved using model based systems engineering tools like No Magic's CAE.  I can foresee a future where your product/service concept begins with a digital model than can be tested, verified, validated, and approved or rejected, before the prototype development begins. 

I've had good support from them. They have been very responsive when I've submitted problem tickets in the past.  I've always had the opportunity to discuss my issues with a live tech when necessary.

I've attempted to use various process modeling tools, but none are as comprehensive as the No Magic CAE software.

The initial setup was a little complex. However, they just recently made a change, so the process is going to be a little different going forward.  That's part of the transition to Dassault, the company that acquired No Magic.

Deployment doesn't take that long. It's just a matter of them giving you the seat license and then you have to go to the website and/or download the application and run it. 

No.

Grows with every new client.

When you purchase a No Magic product, you are buying a seat license.  I would say licensing cost ranges anywhere from $3,500 to $6,500 per seat (depending on the software and plugins you purchase).  Then you have an annual maintenance/service agreement if you want to have technical support and receive software updates.  It would probably run from 250.00-1500 per seat.  

Yes.  Bizagi, ARIS, Signavio, bpm online, iGrafix, etc.

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.