Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Architecture Tools

Gartner RAS Core Research Note G00156427, Greta A. James, 17 June 2008

EA tools provide a repository to store, structure and relate a wide

variety of information. The tools also support the analysis and
presentation of this information to meet stakeholder needs.

This document was revised on 30 June 2008. For more information, see the Corrections
page on gartner.com

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

As organizations grapple with the need to understand and relate multiple aspects of their
enterprise architecture (EA), the EA tool market continues to attract considerable interest and
benefit from enhanced functionality. The dynamics of this market also continue to be affected
by merger and acquisition activity.

Although the Magic Quadrant is a view of the market as a whole, the best tool for a given
organization might well be outside of the Leaders quadrant. When selecting an EA tool,
organizations should consider a range of criteria and should weight these according to their
current and future needs. Because we expect this market to remain volatile for some time to
come, organizations should consider the viability of their preferred vendor.

MAGIC QUADRANT
Market Overview
As increasing numbers of enterprise architects grapple with the challenge of understanding
and relating the wide range of relevant information, the EA tool market has continued to
attract considerable interest. At the same time, the vendors have continued to add new
capabilities to their products.

In addition, merger and acquisition activity has continued, with IBM completing its acquisition
of Telelogic in April 2008 and Metastorm buying Proforma in July 2007. Attracted by the
current interest in enterprise architecture, new vendors continue to enter this market,
particularly through enhancements to modeling tools.

A characteristic of this market is the prevalence of small vendors. Of the 13 companies included
in this year’s Magic Quadrant, only three companies (IBM, IDS Scheer and Sybase) are listed on
a stock exchange, and most of the others are small private companies. Another characteristic of
this market is the number of companies whose headquarters are in Europe – seven of the 13
vendors described in this research. Along with the small size of many of the vendors, this means
that there is more regional allegiance than in many other software markets.

With IBM’s extensive worldwide presence and effective services organization, its acquisition of
Telelogic will have a major impact on this market. In addition, we expect Sybase to focus
more attention on enterprise architecture and to leverage its position in the related database
2
design market where it has a 35% market share. Figure 1. Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Architecture Tools
However, because the market is still immature, with
new capabilities being added constantly, we expect
that there will continue to be opportunities for small,
innovative vendors.
Market Definition/Description
Enterprise architects must bring together information
on a variety of subjects, including applications, data
(structured and unstructured), technology of various
kinds, interfaces, business processes, and
organization structures, and they must relate this
content to the business strategy and to various
environmental trends. The architects must
understand and represent the relationships between
all this information and to communicate this to their
stakeholders.

Many enterprises start off using diagramming tools

and spreadsheets to document their architectures.
Although this can be useful initially, ensuring the
consistency of these documents becomes extremely
difficult once artifacts appear in multiple places. For
example, an application might appear on a diagram
depicting a server, a diagram depicting a business
process and a diagram depicting the application’s
interfaces. Changes to the application might require
updates in all diagrams, introducing opportunities for
inconsistency and inaccuracy.

The EA tool market consists of vendors that offer

software products to store, structure, analyze and
present information related to enterprise architecture.
The information stored in an EA tool must
encompass business architecture, information
architecture, technology architecture and solution
architecture. Vendors usually offer related support, training,
consulting and maintenance.
The minimum requirements of an EA tool are:
• A repository.
• A metamodel that supports the business, information and
technology viewpoints, as well as solution architectures. The
repository should also support relationships among and
between objects in these viewpoints or architectures.
• Ability to create or import models and artifacts.
• The ability to present repository information to support
stakeholder needs, including in graphical, text and
executable forms.
Source: Gartner (June 2008)
In the vendor descriptions below, we highlight several strengths
and cautions for each vendor. We have not attempted to mention
all strengths and cautions for each vendor. Rather, the purpose of
the comments is to provide guidance on the most salient,
distinguishing points for each vendor.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
To be included in this Magic Quadrant, a vendor must have a
product (or integrated set of products) that meets the minimum
requirements for an EA tool (described previously). All vendors
were required to demonstrate that they are being used in
production to support EA work in at least 50 organizations, and
user references were checked. Additionally, when the list of

The Magic Quadrant is copyrighted June 2008 by Gartner, Inc. and is reused with permission. The Magic Quadrant is a graphical representation of a market-
place at and for a specific time period. It depicts Gartner’s analysis of how certain vendors measure against criteria for that marketplace, as defined by Gartner.
Gartner does not endorse any vendor, product or service depicted in the Magic Quadrant, and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors
placed in the “Leaders” quadrant. The Magic Quadrant is intended solely as a research tool, and is not meant to be a specific guide to action. Gartner dis-
claims all warranties, express or implied, with respect to this research, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.

© 2008 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction and distribution of this publication in any form without prior written permission is
forbidden. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable. Gartner disclaims all warranties as to the accuracy,
completeness or adequacy of such information. Although Gartner’s research may discuss legal issues related to the information technology business, Gartner
does not provide legal advice or services and its research should not be construed or used as such. Gartner shall have no liability for errors, omissions or
inadequacies in the information contained herein or for interpretations thereof. The opinions expressed herein are subject to change without notice.

vendors was finalized on 29 November 2007, the vendor must
have derived at least $2 million in license and maintenance
revenue during the previous reporting year from products that are
used for enterprise architecture or have exhibited an innovative
approach to addressing the market’s needs.
Added
• IBM acquired Telelogic in April 2008, and Metastorm acquired
Proforma in July 2007. As a result, IBM/Telelogic and
Metastorm have been added to the Magic Quadrant.
• A Dutch company, BiZZdesign, and a U.K. company,
Salamander, have been added to this analysis, because they
have both begun to establish a presence in the EA tool market.
Dropped
• Proforma does not appear on this Magic Quadrant, because it
was acquired by Metastorm in July 2007.
• Telelogic does not appear on this Magic Quadrant, because it
was acquired by IBM in April 2008.
• Agilense has not been included in this Magic Quadrant,
because it did not satisfy the inclusion criteria.
Evaluation Criteria
Ability to Execute
Vendors are evaluated on their ability to be competitive, efficient
and effective, and to positively impact revenue, retention and
reputation. Ultimately, technology providers are judged on their
ability and success in capitalizing on their vision:
• Product/Service: This includes the core products offered by
the vendors that compete in this market. We looked at five
aspects of the vendor’s EA product suite:
• Ways to structure information meaningfully through the
supplied metamodel, architecture frameworks and
repository, as well as the ability to customize these
structures
• Information presentation, including variety, ease of use and
publishing capabilities
• Analytical capabilities related to EA, including gap analysis,
impact analysis and the ability to apply business
intelligence analysis to repository information
• The ability to import information from relevant sources, such
as design tools of various kinds, IT management tools and
packaged applications, or to create that information within
the tool, as well as to export information to facilitate
stakeholder use
• Tool administration, including configuration management,
security and features to support the management of
architecture, such as tracking of the use of future-state-
architecture principles and models, workflow, and discussion
threads
• Overall Viability: An assessment of the vendor’s financial
health, the strength of its customer base and its presence in
the market; for a large vendor, we also evaluated the relevant
business unit and the likelihood that the vendor will continue to
invest in and sell the product.
3
• Sales Execution/Pricing: The vendor’s presales activities and
the structure that supports them, including pricing, presales
support and the overall effectiveness of the sales channel.
• Market Responsiveness and Track Record: Ability to
respond to changes in the market as customer needs evolve
and market dynamics change.
• Marketing Execution: The effectiveness of programs
communicating the organization’s message to the market to
increase awareness of its products and establish a positive
identification with the product or brand and organization among
buyers. We removed this criterion because these factors have
been included in marketing strategy, market responsiveness
and track record.
• Customer Experience: This evaluates the customer’s
experience with the vendor and its products.
• Operations: The organization’s ability to meet its goals and
commitments, including the vendor’s technical support, training
and consulting operations.
Completeness of Vision
Vendors are evaluated on their ability to convincingly articulate
logical statements about current and future market direction,
innovation, customer needs, and competitive forces and how well
they map to the Gartner position. Ultimately, vendors are rated on
their understanding of how market forces can be exploited to
create opportunity for the provider:
• Market Understanding: Ability to understand and accurately
forecast buyers’ needs, and to translate these needs into
products and services.
• Marketing Strategy: A clear, differentiated set of messages
communicated consistently throughout the organization and
externalized through the Web site, advertising, customer
programs and positioning statements.
Table 1. Ability to Execute Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Criteria Weighting
Product/Service high
Overall Viability (Business Unit, Financial, standard
Strategy, Organization)
Sales Execution/Pricing standard
Market Responsiveness and Track Record standard
Marketing Execution no rating
Customer Experience standard
Operations standard
Source: Gartner (June 2008)
4
Table 2. Completeness of Vision Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Criteria Weighting
Market Understanding standard
Marketing Strategy standard
Sales Strategy standard
Offering (Product) Strategy standard
Business Model standard
Vertical/Industry Strategy standard
Innovation no rating
Geographic Strategy low
Source: Gartner (June 2008)
• Sales Strategy: The strategy that uses the appropriate
network of direct and indirect sales channels, coupled with
marketing, service and communication affiliates that extend the
scope and depth of market reach for selling products.
• Offering (Product) Strategy: A vendor’s approach to product
development and delivery that emphasizes differentiation,
functionality, methodology and features as they map to users’
requirements.
• Business Model: The soundness and logic of a vendor’s
underlying business proposition.
• Vertical/Industry Strategy: The vendor’s strategy to direct
resources, skills and offerings to meet the specific needs of
individual market segments, including vertical industries.
• Innovation: Direct, related, complementary and synergistic
allocation of resources, expertise or capital for investment,
consolidation, defensive or pre-emptive purposes. We removed
this criterion because innovation has been included in the
market understanding and product strategy criteria.
• Geographic Strategy: The vendor’s strategy to direct
resources, skills and offerings to meet the specific needs of
geographies outside the “home” or native region directly or
through partners, channels and subsidiaries, as appropriate for
that geography and market.
Leaders
Leaders have a broad range of capabilities to support EA,
combined with the ability to deliver this to a diverse group of
stakeholders. All four leaders in this market have demonstrated
innovation, with a growing focus on architecture implementation
support.
Challengers
Both challengers have good modeling capabilities – particularly
with business process analysis (BPA). Although they are
strengthening their links to projects and their ability to better
support the implementation of the future-state architecture, these
capabilities have not been a differentiator for them. However, both
are well-established in this market and are executing well.
Visionaries
These vendors have demonstrated innovation in this market, but
they have yet to exhibit the mix of overall viability, functional
breadth, sales execution and track record that would place them in
the Leaders quadrant. Casewise is the only vendor in the
Visionaries quadrant.
Niche Players
Vendors in the Niche Players quadrant tend to have strengths in
numerous aspects of EA without providing broader support.
Alternatively, they tend to have more-limited experience with EA
geographically, focus on a specific industry, lack a specific focus
on this market or are new to the market.
Vendor Strengths and Cautions
alfabet
Strengths
• In January 2007, alfabet opened an office in the U.S., which
rapidly generated interest, culminating in sales. Although its
customers are still predominantly in Germany and neighboring
countries, alfabet has established a North American
beachhead. It continues to enhance its product in an innovative
fashion and to maintain satisfaction with its existing customers,
which include several large multinational corporations.
• Alfabet’s planningIT solution is well-suited to organizations that
want to track and manage the rollout and use of EA by
projects. One attractive feature is the product’s ability to
monitor and compare the solutions that projects propose and
implement with the agreed-on future-state architecture. For
example, planningIT has the ability to compare operational
plans with architecture master maps and to calculate
architecture adherence indicators.
• Alfabet’s planningIT contains a rich metamodel out of the box,
with coverage of business, information, technology and solution
architectures, as well as business strategy. This provides a firm
foundation on which to structure and relate the variety of
information that is of interest to enterprise architects and then
to track its use by projects.
• There are also attractive capabilities for the management of EA
processes, which will suit organizations that require more
management rigor. For example, assignments enable user
contributions to architecture artifacts to be tracked and have
target dates to allow for expiration (for optional assignments) or
escalation (for mandatory assignments). These contributions
include updating information related to an artifact, as well as
reviewing and approving artifacts.
Cautions
• Although having successfully created a presence in North
America, alfabet now needs to scale up its operations to
consolidate this expansion. To do this, it must strengthen its

sales and support organization, which will require a cultural
change. This transition has proven difficult for many vendors.
However, based on the maturity that it has shown in
establishing its North American operation, we believe that
alfabet can successfully negotiate this next phase.
• Like many in this market, alfabet is a small, private company,
with estimated revenue from EA between $5 million and $25
million. Because it is experiencing very strong revenue growth,
in our opinion, it is a tempting acquisition target. Although a
new owner may retain key alfabet personnel and continue to
enhance its valuable strategic IT planning solution, there is an
element of uncertainty. Buyers should negotiate contract
conditions that bind successor companies to protect them
against this possibility.
Adaptive
Strengths
• Adaptive’s repository has the ability to manage a wide range of
metadata. This will be attractive to organizations looking for a
single tool that enables them not only to understand their
enterprise architecture but also to use the repository to support
other activities, such as data management and solution
development.
• Adaptive customers’ feedback on satisfaction with technical
support services has been excellent. Access to developers was
cited as being particularly valuable.
Cautions
• Adaptive depends on Microsoft Visio to draw models in
notations appropriate to various stakeholder needs. This results
in an undue complexity, particularly when compared with other
tools in this market. Organizations looking for integrated
modeling capabilities in their EA tool should seek alternatives.
• Adaptive is a small vendor with estimated revenue from EA of less
than $5 million. Adaptive’s size constrains its ability to serve
different geographies, which, when combined with its lack of
product diversification, in our view, makes it vulnerable to
acquisition. Buyers should negotiate contract conditions that bind
successor companies to protect them against this possibility.
ASG
Strengths
• Allen Systems Group (ASG)-Rochade repository has the ability
to manage a wide range of metadata. This will be attractive to
organizations looking for a single tool that enables them not
only to understand their enterprise architecture but also to use
the repository to support other activities, such as data
management and solution development.
• ASG-Rochade has the ability to exchange information with a
range of products, including a number of modeling,
development and business intelligence tools. This includes the
5
ability to discover relationships through a list of possible
matches and an associated probability. This is particularly useful
for organizations that want to automate exchanges with other
metadata stores.
Cautions
• Although ASG-Rochade is a leading metadata repository, ASG
has not been able to effectively communicate its benefits to
enterprise architects. The ASG-Rochade home page
demonstrates this, describing several technical features, such
as extended name lengths and scalability, while remaining silent
on anticipated business benefits. Organizations considering the
use of ASG-Rochade for enterprise architecture must be
prepared to make additional efforts to understand how to best
use the product for this purpose.
• ASG has recently introduced an EA starter pack with a list price
of $60,000 for five concurrent users. Although this is a
significant reduction of the initial investment required, many
organizations at lower EA maturity levels will struggle to justify
an upfront investment of this size.
BiZZdesign
Strengths
• BiZZdesign is focused on Belgium, the Netherlands and
Luxembourg and has strong academic links in that region. In
particular, it is one of the tools that support ArchiMate modeling
language, which is now being transferred to The Open Group
from the Telematica Instituut in the Netherlands where
BiZZdesign is also based. This is complemented by
BiZZdesign’s focus on training, with its materials, methods and
tools being used by several universities.
• Like several other products in this market, BiZZdesign can
display the results of a query on the repository in a graphical
format. It can also explore the relationships of objects on a
diagram in a stepwise fashion. This will suit organizations
wanting intuitive, visual impact analysis.
Cautions
• BiZZdesign is a small vendor, with estimated revenue from its
EA product suite in 2007 of less than $5 million. BiZZdesign
does not have a wide geographic presence because its
customers are primarily located in the Netherlands and
neighboring countries. Its small size, in our view, makes it
vulnerable to acquisition. Buyers should negotiate contract
conditions that bind successor companies to protect them
against this possibility.
• BiZZdesign users comment on its flexibility, including the ease
of metamodel customization. However, this flexibility is achieved
through the use of a scripting language and is not graphical.
Consequently, organizations that are considering this product
and needing flexibility must be prepared to acquire the relevant
technical skills.
6
Casewise
Strengths
• Although having benefits across a wide range of vertical
industries, Casewise offers focused frameworks and models for
several industries, including telecommunications, utilities,
healthcare and pharmaceuticals, which will suit organizations
wanting to leverage these to kick-start their enterprise
architecture work.
• The feedback we have received about Casewise’s consulting
services has been very positive. Referenced customers use
adjectives such as “outstanding,” “wonderful” and “perfect,”
resulting in a staunchly loyal customer group. Access to the
development team has contributed to this satisfaction level.
• Casewise contains a rich metamodel out of the box, with
coverage of business, information, technology and solution
architectures, as well as business strategy. This provides a firm
foundation on which to structure and relate the variety of
information that is of interest to enterprise architects.
Cautions
• Although providing an attractive EA tool, Casewise has yet to
display leadership in specific areas of this market. This will not
be a good fit for organizations that wish to be early adopters of
new EA tool capabilities.
• Casewise’s customers value the access that they have to the
developers and their ability to influence future product
capabilities. However, we believe that, as Casewise grows, this
access will be reduced as the company attempts to balance its
long-term product directions with the needs of an increasingly
diverse customer base. We estimate that Casewise’s revenue
from EA is between $5 million and $25 million.
IBM/Telelogic
Strengths
• IBM’s System Architect product suite pioneered enterprise
architecture when it was developed by Popkin Software. The
product has established a substantial presence and “mind
share” in this market. This is illustrated by the fact that the
majority of organizations evaluating EA tools that consult
Gartner for advice include System Architect on their shortlists.
System Architect is a good choice for organizations that are
looking for a well-established and proven tool.
• IBM completed its acquisition of Telelogic on 3 April 2008. With
IBM’s extensive worldwide presence and effective services
organization, this deal will have a major impact on the market.
Although still in its very early days, discussions with IBM
indicate that it understands the important role that EA plays in
aligning business and IT. In particular, we believe that its plan to
leverage the EA expertise in IBM Global Business Services will
provide it with valuable guidance. It is also emphasizing the
importance of making EA actionable and plans to build bridges
between System Architect and other IBM and some third-party
products to implement this. We believe that this acquisition
makes System Architect a particularly attractive choice for
organizations that extensively deploy IBM software.
• System Architect has a rich set of functions to support enterprise
architecture. Recent enhancements include the ability to have
simplified views of the repository to facilitate reporting and
analysis, the ability to view how a model changes through
various future states and the ability to provide an updatable
browser interface to the live repository. Although in many cases,
System Architect has not been the first tool to make these
capabilities available, the development team had been very adept
in prioritizing enhancements to meet the needs of this market.
• As well as competing in the EA tool market, System Architect
participates in several modeling markets, including BPA. This
will appeal to organizations that prefer to acquire an EA solution
that integrates a repository with modeling capabilities.
Cautions
• Telelogic has become part of IBM’s Rational software division.
In our opinion, this is not ideal from an EA perspective,
because Rational’s customers are mainly application developers
and designers. In addition to these stakeholders, an EA tool
must address the needs of business, information and
technology architectures. IBM will need to ensure that
enhancements to System Architect result in a balance between
these various viewpoints.
• Despite its extensive functionality for enterprise architects, two
aspects of System Architect make it unduly complex. The first
aspect is the way in which relationships are represented in the
repository, which makes nonstandard reports and navigation of
relationships more difficult than they need to be. Although System
Architect has a number of capabilities that shield the user, more-
sophisticated users will encounter this issue. The second source
of complexity is customization, which, although powerful, is not
graphical, but is specified through a text file requiring knowledge
of its syntax. Organizations considering any sophisticated use of
System Architect must commit and train resources to deal with
this complexity and to shield the rest of the EA team from it.
IDS Scheer
Strengths
• Architecture of Integrated Information Systems (ARIS) is well-
known for its long-standing leadership in the BPA market and
its rich modeling capabilities. This makes it well-suited for
organizations that want to use the same tool for EA and BPA
and that want a repository with modeling capabilities.
• IDS Scheer is one of the few companies in the EA tool market
to be listed on a stock exchange. The reporting obligations
associated with this, along with the associated scrutiny of
equity analysts, provide increased visibility into the company,
facilitating the due diligence process that we recommend
potential tool buyers to undertake.
• ARIS has the ability to exchange information with a range of
products, including several modeling and development tools, as
well as some integration middleware. ARIS also has the ability
to exchange packaged application configuration information
with SAP’s Solution Manager and to import similar information
from Oracle’s Fusion middleware. This stems from IDS Scheer’s
long-standing and close relationship with SAP and its more
recent relationship with Oracle, which makes it a particularly
attractive choice for organizations in which these vendors’
applications play an important role.
• IDS Scheer’s ARIS products contain a rich metamodel out of
the box, with coverage of business, information, technology
and solution architectures, as well as business strategy. This
provides a firm foundation on which to structure and relate the
variety of information that is of interest to enterprise architects.

Cautions
• Without a consulting engagement, ARIS provides less flexibility
than most other tools in this market for customizing the tool’s
metamodel. However, IDS Scheer has made good progress in
addressing this, including, in the latest release, providing the
ability to add new metamodel attributes. Announcement of the
English version of ARIS 7.1 is expected in June 2008.
Organizations needing to add new objects to the ARIS
metamodel, for the moment, must be prepared to engage IDS
Scheer’s consultants or those from an approved partner.
• In 2007, IDS Scheer derived 39% of its ARIS revenue from
services – down from 45% in 2006. Although most users
derive significant value from services related to the initial
configuration and bedding down of an EA tool, organizations
must ensure that proposals meet their needs. In particular,
organizations should talk to the vendor’s referenced customers
to assess their satisfaction with the scope, cost and quality of
the services that were provided to them.
Mega
Strengths
• Mega has the ability to exchange information with a range of
products, including modeling and development tools, as well
as the ability to export to a number of integration middleware
suites. This benefits organizations that want to automatically
incorporate this information into their repositories. Mega also
has the ability to exchange application configuration
information with SAP’s Solution Manager, making it attractive to
organizations that have significant usage of SAP.
• As well as competing in the EA tool market, Mega participates
in several modeling markets, including BPA. This will appeal to
organizations that prefer to acquire an EA solution that
integrates a repository with modeling capabilities.
• The Mega Modeling Suite contains a rich metamodel out of the
box, with coverage of business, information, technology and
solution architectures. This provides a firm foundation on which
to structure and relate the variety of information that is of
interest to enterprise architects.
Cautions
• Estimated revenue from EA was between $5 million and $25
million during 2007, and Mega derived 45% of this from
services. Although most users derive significant value from
services related to the initial configuration and bedding down of
an EA tool, organizations must ensure that proposals meet their
needs. In particular, organizations should talk to the vendor’s
referenced customers to assess their satisfaction with the scope,
cost and quality of the services that were provided to them.
• We have spoken to several organizations having large numbers
of users that use Mega, with one reporting that the number of
concurrent users on a single repository reached 60. However,
these organizations also have large numbers of repositories,
which they use to manage objects and security. When an
object’s status changes (for example, if it is baselined), it is
typically moved to another repository to reflect this, with an
accompanying administrative workload. If an organization plans
to use Mega in a complex environment with multiple
repositories, it will need staff to perform the required
administration tasks.
7
Metastorm
Strengths
• Although having benefits across a wide range of vertical
industries, Metastorm’s ProVision offers frameworks and
models for several industries, including telecommunications,
insurance, defense and supply chain management. These can
provide a useful starting point for EA work and will be attractive
to many organizations in these industries.
• As well as competing in the EA tool market, ProVision
participates in several modeling markets, including BPA. This
will appeal to organizations that prefer to acquire an EA solution
that integrates a repository with modeling capabilities.
• ProVision has long been known for its ease of use, which has
been maintained, while functionality continues to be added to
the tool. Following the Metastorm acquisition in August 2007,
we believe that this will continue. We also believe that
Metastorm will continue to enhance ProVision’s support for
enterprise architecture.
Cautions
• Although ProVision’s metamodel has good support for business
architecture and solution architecture, it is not as attractive in its
support for information architecture and technology
architecture. Organizations using ProVision for these aspects of
enterprise architecture are likely to have to build their own
metamodel extensions.
• With estimated revenue from EA between $5 million and $25
million in 2007, Metastorm derived 47% of its revenue from
services. Although most end-user clients derive significant value
from services related to the initial configuration and bedding
down of an EA tool, organizations must ensure that proposals
meet their needs. In particular, organizations should talk to the
vendor’s referenced customers to assess their satisfaction with
the scope, cost and quality of the services that were provided
to them.
QualiWare
Strengths
• As well as competing in the EA tool market, QualiWare
participates in several modeling markets, including BPA. This
will appeal to organizations that prefer to acquire an EA solution
that integrates a repository with modeling capabilities.
• QualiWare products contain a rich metamodel out of the box,
with coverage of business, information, technology and solution
architectures, as well as business strategy and environmental
influences. This provides a firm foundation on which to structure
and relate the variety of information that is of interest to
enterprise architects.
Cautions
• Some QualiWare users that we have spoken to have remarked
on the complexity of the tool and the length of time it takes to
become productive. This is exacerbated by the rudimentary
help documentation in the tool and lack of tutorials and worked
samples. Organizations seeking ease of use should consider
alternatives.
8
• QualiWare has enjoyed considerable success in its
Scandinavian base and has successfully established a
presence in North America. However, with estimated revenue
from EA between $5 million and $25 million, QualiWare is still a
relatively small, private company that earns most of its revenue
in Europe. In our opinion, this lack of scale results in
vulnerability to a takeover. Buyers should negotiate contract
conditions that bind successor companies to protect them
against this possibility.
Salamander
Strengths
• Although Salamander has customers across a range of
industries, it has considerable focus on EA support in the
military and intelligence community, and it has had
considerable success with this constituency – particularly in its
U.K. home base. It also has a team dedicated to the natural
resources sector. For these reasons, Salamander is an
attractive choice in these two industries.
• Salamander’s variants allow the representation of different
architecture configurations. Variants are powerful, because they
can be structured as a tree, showing divergences from a
common heritage. The differences between variants can be
displayed graphically. This is particularly useful in a federated
organization, with business units sharing some aspects of the
architecture and being independent in other aspects of the
architecture.
Cautions
• Salamander does not have a wide geographic presence, with
customers primarily located in the U.K. and other western
European countries. Although the Internet and electronic
communications have reduced the impact of distance,
organizations outside Salamander’s home base should clarify
ongoing support arrangements.
• With estimated revenue from EA between $5 million and $25
million, Salamander is growing rapidly, although it is still a
relatively small, private company. In our opinion, this lack of
scale results in vulnerability to a takeover. Buyers should
negotiate contract conditions that bind successor companies
to protect them against this possibility.
Sybase
Strengths
• As well as competing in the EA tool market, Sybase’s
PowerDesigner participates in several modeling markets,
including database design, in which it has a 35% market
share. This will appeal to organizations that prefer to acquire
an EA solution that integrates a repository with modeling
capabilities – particularly those with a strong focus on
information architecture.
• Although we get glowing reports about the support provided by
many of the small vendors in this market, retaining high
satisfaction levels on a much larger scale is very challenging.
However, the Sybase customers we’ve spoken to have been
very happy with the support services that they have
experienced and have rated it highly. This attention to
customers positions Sybase well in its plans to provide more-
extensive EA capabilities and will appeal to organizations that
value excellent support.
Cautions
• PowerDesigner has few features that assist with the
management of architecture activities – features such as
associating development status (for example, in development,
baselined or being retired) with an object or managing
discussions related to objects. Organizations wanting more-
extensive support for the management of their architecture
work should consider alternatives.
• Sybase’s marketing materials give no visibility to the use of
PowerDesigner for enterprise architecture. Organizations
considering the use of PowerDesigner for enterprise
architecture must be prepared to make additional efforts to
understand how to best use the product for this purpose.
Troux Technologies
Strengths
• During the past five years, Troux Technologies has established
itself as a major vendor in the EA tool market. A key contributor
to this success is the company’s unwavering focus on strategic
IT planning, of which enterprise architecture is a major element.
Troux has been able to effectively articulate this vision to appeal
to enterprise architects. It has also been able to translate this
vision into innovative product capabilities and to bring these to
market. Troux is a good choice for organizations seeking
sophisticated support for their enterprise architecture.
• Troux has the ability to provide advanced architecture
configuration management capabilities through the recently
introduced Troux Initiatives product. Troux Initiatives enables a
range of programs to be described, with each program
permitted multiple future options that can be explored.
Furthermore, within each of the options, there is the ability to
track how an object, such as a server or an application,
changes over time. This will be attractive to large, complex
organizations – particularly federated organizations.
• Troux Collection provides starter sets for importing information
from a range of sources that include runtime environments,
such as middleware and server directories. However, the real
value of Troux Collection is that it allows rules to be configured
to resolve conflicting information from multiple sources and to
validate and aggregate information, as well as providing
automatic scheduling of data collection. This is particularly
useful for organizations that want to regularly refresh the
current-state-architecture information in the repository from the
actual runtime environment.
 9
• A range of capabilities foster EA collaboration and governance.
These include the ability to remind users of their obligations to Acronym Key and Glossary Terms
refresh information in the repository. There is also the ability for
architecture stakeholders to make journal entries or blog posts ASG Allen Systems Group
about various information within the repository. This will suit BPA business process analysis
those organizations that require management rigor in their EA EA enterprise architecture
processes, as well as fostering collaboration between
architecture contributors.

Cautions
• Despite its leadership in the EA tool market and adequate cash
from investors, Troux has an estimated revenue from EA of
between $5 million and $25 million and has yet to achieve
profitability. Combined with its attractive product capabilities, in
our opinion, Troux is a tempting takeover target. Although a
new owner may retain key personnel and continue to enhance
its solution, there is an element of uncertainty. Buyers should
negotiate contract conditions that bind successor companies
to protect them against this possibility.
• We have received some reports of Troux’s sales force lacking
responsiveness. This is particularly so for midsize organizations
in locations that are remote from Troux’s offices in Texas, the
U.K. and Germany. Although the new CEO, David Hood, is
strengthening the sales force, midsize organizations remote
from Troux’s locations may need to be particularly persistent to
get its attention.

Vendors Added or Dropped

We review and adjust our inclusion criteria for Magic Quadrants and
MarketScopes as markets change. As a result of these adjustments,
the mix of vendors in any Magic Quadrant or MarketScope may
change over time. A vendor appearing in a Magic Quadrant or
MarketScope one year and not the next does not necessarily
indicate that we have changed our opinion of that vendor. This may
be a reflection of a change in the market and, therefore, changed
evaluation criteria, or a change of focus by a vendor.
10
Evaluation Criteria Definitions

Ability to Execute
Product/Service: Core goods and services offered by the vendor that compete in/serve the defined market. This includes current
product/service capabilities, quality, feature sets, skills and so on, whether offered natively or through OEM agreements/partnerships
as defined in the market definition and detailed in the subcriteria.

Overall Viability (Business Unit, Financial, Strategy, Organization): Viability includes an assessment of the overall organization’s
financial health, the financial and practical success of the business unit, and the likelihood of the individual business unit to continue
investing in the product, to continue offering the product and to advance the state of the art within the organization’s portfolio of
products.

Sales Execution/Pricing: The vendor’s capabilities in all pre-sales activities and the structure that supports them. This includes deal
management, pricing and negotiation, pre-sales support and the overall effectiveness of the sales channel.

Market Responsiveness and Track Record: Ability to respond, change direction, be flexible and achieve competitive success as
opportunities develop, competitors act, customer needs evolve and market dynamics change. This criterion also considers the
vendor’s history of responsiveness.

Marketing Execution: The clarity, quality, creativity and efficacy of programs designed to deliver the organization’s message in order
to influence the market, promote the brand and business, increase awareness of the products, and establish a positive identification
with the product/brand and organization in the minds of buyers. This “mind share” can be driven by a combination of publicity,
promotional, thought leadership, word-of-mouth and sales activities.

Customer Experience: Relationships, products and services/programs that enable clients to be successful with the products
evaluated. Specifically, this includes the ways customers receive technical support or account support. This can also include ancillary
tools, customer support programs (and the quality thereof), availability of user groups, service-level agreements and so on.

Operations: The ability of the organization to meet its goals and commitments. Factors include the quality of the organizational
structure including skills, experiences, programs, systems and other vehicles that enable the organization to operate effectively and
efficiently on an ongoing basis.

Completeness of Vision
Market Understanding: Ability of the vendor to understand buyers’ wants and needs and to translate those into products and
services. Vendors that show the highest degree of vision listen and understand buyers’ wants and needs, and can shape or enhance
those with their added vision.

Marketing Strategy: A clear, differentiated set of messages consistently communicated throughout the organization and
externalized through the Web site, advertising, customer programs and positioning statements.

Sales Strategy: The strategy for selling product that uses the appropriate network of direct and indirect sales, marketing, service
and communication affiliates that extend the scope and depth of market reach, skills, expertise, technologies, services and the
customer base.

Offering (Product) Strategy: The vendor’s approach to product development and delivery that emphasizes differentiation,
functionality, methodology and feature set as they map to current and future requirements.

Business Model: The soundness and logic of the vendor’s underlying business proposition.

Vertical/Industry Strategy: The vendor’s strategy to direct resources, skills and offerings to meet the specific needs of individual
market segments, including verticals.

Innovation: Direct, related, complementary and synergistic layouts of resources, expertise or capital for investment, consolidation,
defensive or pre-emptive purposes.

Geographic Strategy: The vendor’s strategy to direct resources, skills and offerings to meet the specific needs of geographies
outside the “home” or native geography, either directly or through partners, channels and subsidiaries as appropriate for that
geography and market.