No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Aurea CX Process vs No Magic MagicDraw comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Aurea CX Process
Ranking in Business Process Design
26th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Management (BPM) (45th)
No Magic MagicDraw
Ranking in Business Process Design
15th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Business Process Design category, the mindshare of Aurea CX Process is 1.6%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of No Magic MagicDraw is 2.6%, down from 3.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Design Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
No Magic MagicDraw2.6%
Aurea CX Process1.6%
Other95.8%
Business Process Design
 

Featured Reviews

HC
Savvion (BPM) J2EE Developer at a tech vendor with 51-200 employees
Facilitates development flexibility and easy customization
Flexibility of development. Developer can use various JavaScript APIs for development. Most (or all) of the components are plug and play. Customization is easily achievable most of the time As mentioned above, it is more flexible than other products available in the market. Performance. More…
reviewer2080611 - PeerSpot reviewer
System Engineer at a consultancy with 51-200 employees
Ease of use and real-time collaboration empower effective teamwork and streamlined development
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.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Flexibility of development; the developer can use various JavaScript APIs for development and most or all of the components are plug and play, so customization is easily achievable most of the time."
"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. However, it was initially designed and developed for model-based systems engineering. That's the systems engineering required to either produce an IP system or product. It takes away the mounds of paper and puts it into a model. It enables you to generate significant savings by modeling that new product or that system before you ever start developing a prototype."
"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 MBFC capability of MagicDraw is higher than the other competitors."
"The most valuable features are the visibility, standard compliance, and interface."
"It is pretty easy to use. It is pretty versatile."
"Offers good standards compliance and is user-friendly."
"We use it to build the physical and logical domains to hold requirements, specifications, use cases, and all the way down to class definitions."
 

Cons

"Yes, the servers are not as efficient as required."
"The UI UX of the tool is not really user-friendly and needs to be completely reformed."
"The cost of upgrading the product should be lower."
"Larger models slow you down; committing, updating, merging of branches and comparing of models (diff) do not scale yet; issues will hopefully be solved with upcoming V19."
"The software is a little more challenging if you haven't been trained on how to use it."
"I would like to see the ability to deploy live business process models and capture real-time data (without the need for another product tool) so you don't have to be dependent on other products for this functionality."
"I would like to see the ability to deploy live business process models and capture real-time data (without the need for another product tool) so you don't have to be dependent on other products for this functionality."
"The price of the solution could be reduced."
"It's very focused on specific modern languages and it doesn't do necessarily general systems software engineering with diagrams."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"I would say licensing would be anywhere from $3,500 to $6,500 per person or per seat (it's a per seat style license)."
"The licensing is on a yearly basis, and it's expensive."
"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 pricing a ten out of ten. It is an expensive product compared to software for model-based system engineering."
"In addition to the initial cost, you have to pay annually for support in order to get the upgrades."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Design solutions are best for your needs.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Manufacturing Company
23%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
11%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise7
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for 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.
What needs improvement with No Magic MagicDraw?
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...
What is your primary use case for No Magic MagicDraw?
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.
 

Also Known As

CX Process Enterprise, Savvion BusinessManager, Savvion Process Modeler
MagicDraw
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Air France-KLM, Proximus, Barratt Developments, Heathrow, HomeServe, Paypal, Freedom Mortgage
Northrop Grumman, Labcorp, Deposco, ClearView Training, IT Services Promotion Agency, Intelligent Chaos, Metalithic Systems Inc., Sodifrance
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Bizagi, Microsoft and others in Business Process Design. Updated: May 2026.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.