Bizagi Modeler review

How each criterion scored

1. 1

   Modeling capability

   10 / 20 out of 20

   How much of a real process the model can represent: routing, resources and shifts, queueing, batching, statistical distributions and control logic.

   Four documented simulation levels, from validating that a model runs, through end to end timing, to resource contention, to working calendars with shifts and breaks. Genuinely substantial for a free tool, and clearly short of a discrete event engine: no documented batching, inventory or materials handling.

2. 2

   Ease of learning

   16 / 20 out of 20

   How long it takes to reach a first useful model. Onboarding, templates, and how much scripting the product makes unavoidable.

   Built on a published notation standard rather than a proprietary one, and free to start, so the first model costs nothing but time. The documentation is unusually detailed and openly published, including a worked example for each simulation level.

3. 3

   Results, analysis and experimentation

   10 / 20 out of 20

   Depth of reporting, bottleneck analysis, scenario comparison, repeated runs, and structured experiments.

   Documented throughput timings reported as minimum, maximum, mean and total, and resource utilization across a working calendar. There is no documented structured experiment design, and no repeated run statistics of the kind the discrete event products carry.

4. 4

   Pricing transparency and total cost

   11 / 15 out of 15

   Whether a price is published at all, what training, renewal and hosting add to it, and what the free tier really allows.

   The modeling tool and its simulation are free for an individual user, which is a strong position at the point of evaluation, and its freeware agreement is not limited to non commercial work. It is not full marks because the platform it is designed to lead into publishes no price at all.

5. 5

   Visualization and stakeholder communication

   4 / 10 out of 10

   How well a finished run persuades somebody who did not build the model. A three dimensional view is one route to that, and not the only one: an animated run, a heatmap showing when a queue builds, or a chart ranking every step by what it costs can each do the same job at a fraction of the effort to produce.

   A clear standards based process diagram, and no animated model or three dimensional view. A result is presented as a chart and a table rather than as something a room can watch.

6. 6

   Platform and deployment

   7 / 10 out of 10

   Which operating systems are supported, whether it runs in a browser, and how teams share and govern work.

   A Windows desktop application. The publisher's FAQ says Mac OS is not currently supported and suggests a virtual machine, and collaboration through the cloud belongs to the paid plans, so no browser version of the free application is established.

7. 7

   Learning resources and support

   4 / 5 out of 5

   Documentation, training, an active community, and academic access.

   Detailed public documentation with a worked example per simulation level, and a large user community. The published material is oriented toward the automation platform rather than toward simulation as a discipline.