We performed a comparison between QPR ProcessDesigner and Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Design solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It makes communication easier due to transparency on processes."
"Processes become clearer, easier to understand, and easier to spot in development areas."
"It is a handy tool for visual modeling that provides opportunities for analysis, design, and support of models using ArchiMate, UML."
"Ability to model and create view under same roof."
"The profiles allow me to customize the tool to the corporate environment instead of the other way around saving huge amounts of time and energy on trying to turn dozens of individuals into TOGAF, ArchiMate or Zachman experts, or even Sparx EA experts."
"Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect was easy to set up and it took just twenty minutes."
"Features good reporting facilities coupled with a concrete database."
"Using Sparx Enterprise Architect allowed my customer to detail and make the company's IT strategy visible and accessible to all. The system provided clear roadmaps for IT development and helped to keep up-to-date documentation of systems and processes."
"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 solution saved a lot of time, about 30%."
"There is definitely a need to produce models in XML. There is already something available, but it seems that transferring between the different modelling tools is difficult."
"Their technical support is not good in India. I wrote to them because I had a question, but I never got an answer. So, I just left it behind."
"I think that collaboration can be better."
"More challenging than other tools to maintain documents and document versions for an architecture board review."
"This solution should have better ease of use for the uninitiated."
"The presentation graphics need to be improved in future builds."
"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."
"When many users are accessing the system at the same time, Sparx slows down. It can't easily support a large team."
"I would like the system to more "intellectually" build a scheme, place icons, and connect lines on the schemes."
More Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
QPR ProcessDesigner is ranked 25th in Business Process Design while Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is ranked 4th in Business Process Design with 97 reviews. QPR ProcessDesigner is rated 8.0, while Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of QPR ProcessDesigner writes "FactView was easy to use and integrate". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect writes "Easy to set up and had no issues with stability, but it's not a very friendly tool, and its database modeling and entity-relationship modeling functions need improvement". QPR ProcessDesigner is most compared with SAP Signavio Process Manager, whereas Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is most compared with Visual Paradigm, Visio, No Magic MagicDraw, Lucidchart and LeanIX. See our QPR ProcessDesigner vs. Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect report.
See our list of best Business Process Design vendors.
We monitor all Business Process Design reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.