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
22nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Management (BPM) (43rd)
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 August 2026, in the Business Process Design category, the mindshare of Aurea CX Process is 2.0%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of No Magic MagicDraw is 2.4%, down from 2.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Design Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
No Magic MagicDraw2.4%
Aurea CX Process2.0%
Other95.6%
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."
"Magic Draw has capabilities that I'm sure I haven't even touched on, but at least for what I'm attempting to achieve, it provides the most capability to meet my needs at this point in time."
"We use it to build the physical and logical domains to hold requirements, specifications, use cases, and all the way down to class definitions."
"No Magic has the tools and capabilities to model a complete enterprise and all product lines."
"We are getting away from the old ways of writing a lot of papers and requirements documents, architecture documents, technical solution documents, interface documents - those days are gone."
"The most valuable feature of No Magic MagicDraw is the simulation capabilities and interface."
"It is very user-friendly, and the customer service is really good."
"Offers good standards compliance and is user-friendly."
"The most valuable feature is the amount of flexibility that one has to model, which is great for an individual."
 

Cons

"Yes, the servers are not as efficient as required."
"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."
"However, there are some technical features that you have to study and do research on to be able to understand."
"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."
"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."
"The technical support is not very good."
"For the next releases, I would like to have them import requirements from other sources. They could make it very easy to do that because there are a lot requirements management tools like DOORS, D-O-O-R-S, Dynamic Object Oriented Management. A lot of folks use DOORS to create a requirement. For those requirements you allocate them to a component in the architecture and a verification method for that requirement. It would be good if we could import those into MagicDraw as components so you don't have to manually do these things."
"The cost of upgrading the product should be lower."
"The documentation for MagicDraw and the video tutorials compared to other competitors is an area for improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"In addition to the initial cost, you have to pay annually for support in order to get the upgrades."
"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."
"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)."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Design solutions are best for your needs.
908,800 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 Bizagi, Microsoft, Camunda and others in Business Process Design. Updated: July 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.