Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

SAP Enterprise Architecture Designer vs Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect 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

SAP Enterprise Architecture...
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
22nd
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Sparx Systems Enterprise Ar...
Ranking in Enterprise Architecture Management
2nd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
99
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Enterprise Architecture Management category, the mindshare of SAP Enterprise Architecture Designer is 0.9%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is 13.2%, down from 17.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Architecture Management
 

Featured Reviews

Artur Chyziewicz - PeerSpot reviewer
Great training available with traceability a key feature
I use this solution to model enterprise software architecture. We are customers of SAP and an educational organization in Poland.  Traceability is a fantastic feature.  They should upgrade the algorithm. The solution currently has an old algorithm and there are now free tools on the market that…
Milan Sterba - PeerSpot reviewer
Efficient documentation generation through organized model structure with a good price-performance ratio
Whenever I begin a new project with Sparx, I have to spend time training people on how to use it since it is not straightforward. Although it's a powerful product with plenty of features, it's not easy for even experienced users to find their way without guidance. This is not the most user-friendly solution.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Traceability is a fantastic feature."
"The best thing about the tool is that its database is open."
"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."
"It is a very rich tool in terms of the functionality, and the types of diagrams, that you can create in this tool."
"Modeling is a part of my work, and it has a lot of standard modeling languages. It is quite wide, and a lot is possible in it. We are not programming it ourselves, but if you are into programming and developing software yourself, you can go further and do a lot with Sparx. You can work from the framework and go into the details. With this solution, you get a lot of value at a low cost. It is also quite intuitive in terms of use. I like the use of it."
"The advantages of Enterprise are that it's cheaper and much more practical than MagicDraw."
"There are a lot of features in Enterprise Architect. It allows us to take on a lot of tasks."
"The most valuable feature is the integrated data model, so if I change the name of an item, all models using that object are automatically updated."
"There are a couple of things. Price is one thing, but we also like the scriptability of it. We got into scripting it and automating tasks with it, and it is super duper easy to do and helpful. The API has improved over the years. We automate everything, and I love the automation aspects of it."
 

Cons

"The algorithm is outdated and should be upgraded."
"Even if there are web-based tools in the Enterprise Architecture tool ecosystem (like Prolaborate), the main modeling application is still a fat client application."
"Whenever I begin a new project with Sparx, I have to spend time training people on how to use it since it is not straightforward."
"I think that collaboration can be better."
"This solution has some limitations from a business perspective."
"I would like it to be less of a general tool. Currently, it is not a Swiss army knife that can do everything. It is not specialized for our purposes. We are a civil engineering company. We build things. We work mostly in what is known as Infra world in the Netherlands, which comprises objects such as bridges, locks, and water management. We would like to see more focus on such types of projects. It would be nice if it has more specializations. At the moment, it is very generic, and you have to create everything yourself. Our focus is more on user requirement management, which is currently very basic. I would like to see a lot more functionality in this area. Its basic functions for adding user requirements are perfect, but we need more features. Currently, it has limited possibilities for our requirements. I would also like to see better contract management and have it managed in a certain way."
"The database management area was not usable."
"The templates for documentation should be enhanced to include complex documents such as template RFP, or Non functional requirements template."
"In a future release, they should improve portfolio planning."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"It’s the best deal in town, by far."
"There is no license required for this solution."
"This product has a paid license, with a yearly subscription option."
"We paid 1200 euros as a once-off cost. All add ons and integrations come at an additional cost."
"Enterprise licensing is competitive. What would be helpful if they load the pricing for consultants, you know, people who are consultants for clients. So the license is fine for end-user organizations. Still, they should consider lowering the license to support this adoption, particularly for people who are consultants like myself."
"It's affordable. The only additional cost that we haven't yet figured out is the floating license. If you buy a floating license, you have to have a license management server, which comes at an additional cost that's not discussed. So, we haven't yet used the floating license. That’s because I haven't had a chance to figure that out."
"Its price is very good for the value that you get with it."
"Pricing and licensing are suitable even for small companies."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Architecture Management solutions are best for your needs.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
15%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Comms Service Provider
11%
University
11%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Educational Organization
12%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect?
The stability has been good and satisfactory. I would rate the stability a ten out of ten.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect?
One of the reasons many public sector institutions in the Czech Republic use it is that it provides a very good price-performance ratio. While it might be cumbersome to learn, it still delivers exc...
What needs improvement with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect?
Whenever I begin a new project with Sparx, I have to spend time training people on how to use it since it is not straightforward. Although it's a powerful product with plenty of features, it's not ...
 

Also Known As

SAP EA Designer
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
OmniLink
Find out what your peers are saying about SAP LeanIX, Sparx Systems, erwin by Quest and others in Enterprise Architecture Management. Updated: June 2025.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.