System Engineer at a consultancy with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 20
Jul 14, 2025
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.
Chief Refrigeration Product Development Division at Indurama
Real User
Jan 31, 2023
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.
SCM Build/Release Manager at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Aug 17, 2022
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.
Director, Strategy and Consulting at a university with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
May 21, 2021
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.
I would rate MagicDraw a nine out of ten because of the price. Enterprise Architect has a lot of bugs and MagicDraw is a lot more accurate and flexible. It's a level better.
Adjunct Professor at a university with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
Jul 19, 2020
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'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.
Expert System Engineer at a transportation company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Apr 19, 2020
My advice to anybody who is designing complex projects, like defense projects or space projects, is that they have to use this program or one like it. All of the stakeholders have to understand that they need to review the product using models, in addition to the documents. Following this will ensure that it is very easy to understand the product that is being designed. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.
Principal Systems Engineer at a tech services company with 1-10 employees
Real User
Apr 19, 2020
I would advise someone considering this solution to do a proof of concept. Ensure that your engineers have training, not just in the tool, but also in the language they're going to language speaking. I would rate it an eight out of ten.
We are the largest MagicDraw user in Hungary. It's good software, but there is little to no market penetration. People don't know about it or use it. Where is the revenue of the software? There has to be more awareness as Enterprise Architects. The design itself is nothing. Design with consulting is something, but design with confirmation and consulting is the real product. This is the message; without confirmation, there is no product. My advice is to import the design into Confluence, put in the effort through discussion, review it, redesign it again, and then it should work. The business is important for MagicDraw, but the vendors are as well. Because I can design, but I cannot sell it, I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
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.
No Magic MagicDraw is a powerful modeling tool recognized for its flexibility and integration capabilities, especially suited for enterprise modeling and systems engineering. Featuring a user-friendly interface, it supports diverse modeling architectures with tools for testing and simulation.Renowned for its compliance with OMG standards, No Magic MagicDraw excels in offering comprehensive modeling options that support model-based systems engineering. Its rich feature set enables digital...
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'd rate the solution nine out of ten.
I rate No Magic MagicDraw a nine out of ten.
I would definitely recommend using the solution. Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten.
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.
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.
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.
On a scale of one to ten, I would give No Magic MagicDraw a nine. Overall I find it very effective and the customers are happy with it.
I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.
I would rate MagicDraw a nine out of ten because of the price. Enterprise Architect has a lot of bugs and MagicDraw is a lot more accurate and flexible. It's a level better.
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'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.
My advice to anybody who is designing complex projects, like defense projects or space projects, is that they have to use this program or one like it. All of the stakeholders have to understand that they need to review the product using models, in addition to the documents. Following this will ensure that it is very easy to understand the product that is being designed. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.
I would advise someone considering this solution to do a proof of concept. Ensure that your engineers have training, not just in the tool, but also in the language they're going to language speaking. I would rate it an eight out of ten.
We are the largest MagicDraw user in Hungary. It's good software, but there is little to no market penetration. People don't know about it or use it. Where is the revenue of the software? There has to be more awareness as Enterprise Architects. The design itself is nothing. Design with consulting is something, but design with confirmation and consulting is the real product. This is the message; without confirmation, there is no product. My advice is to import the design into Confluence, put in the effort through discussion, review it, redesign it again, and then it should work. The business is important for MagicDraw, but the vendors are as well. Because I can design, but I cannot sell it, I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
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.