We performed a comparison between Apache Airflow and Camunda Platform based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Camunda Platform has an edge over Apache Airflow in this comparison. It is easier to deploy and is scalable and robust. However, Apache Airflow users are overall more satisfied with the pricing of the product.
"Apache Airflow is in Python language, making it easy to use and learn."
"Its user-friendly interface makes it straightforward to operate, offering a plethora of features for data preparation, buffering, and format conversion."
"The reason we went with Airflow is its DAG presentation, that shows the relationships among everything. It's more of a configuration-driven workflow."
"I like the UI rework, it's much easier."
"The solution is flexible for all programming languages for all frameworks."
"Apache Airflow is useful for workflow automation, making it capable of automating pipelines, data pipelines, and data warehouse processes."
"The tool is user-friendly."
"Development on Apache Airflow is really fast, and it's easy to use with the newer updates. Everything is in Python, so it's not hard to understand. They also have a graphical view, so if you are not a programmer and you are just an administrator, you can easily track everything and see if everything is working or not."
"When I compare it with other BPM tools, like IBM, it is great, open source, and free when you use the community version."
"It has an open BPM"
"One valuable feature of the solution is its flexibility."
"We can share, discuss, and develop the model together — from a distance. It's really helped us during these times of isolation."
"The interface and the number of connectors that they provide are the most valuable features. The support here, it's kind of okay. But the main thing is with the number of connectors and the UI, the user interface."
"There's this graphic that tells you how many lines or how many tickets are in each step. In that way, you know where you stand. I find this feature very valuable."
"The ease with which I can define workflows is most valuable. The latest updates and flexibility that it provides around a task activity are interesting for me."
"The number of client implementations and cross-language capabilities to support multiple frameworks is very pluggable compared to Pega. It's also more portable."
"Apache Airflow should have better integration with cloud platforms."
"One specific feature that is missing from Airflow is that the steps of your workflow are not pipelined, meaning the stageless steps of any workflow. Not every workflow can be implemented within Airflow."
"We're currently using version 1.10, but I understand that there's a lot of improvements in version 2. In the earlier version that we're using, we sometimes have problems with maintenance complexity. Actually using Airflow is okay, but maintaining it has been difficult."
"UI can be improved with additional user-friendly features for non-programmers and for fewer coding practitioner requirements."
"We have faced scenarios where Apache Airflow becomes non-responsive, leading to job failures. To resolve such situations, we had to manually reboot Apache Airflow since it doesn't provide an option to restart within the application. This necessitated modifying some configurations to initiate a restart of all Apache Airflow components. Although Apache Airflow is generally dependable, it may occasionally encounter glitches that can disrupt production flows and batches."
"The scalability of the solution itself is not as we expected. Being on the cloud, it should be easy to scale, however, it's not."
"We cannot run real-time jobs in the solution."
"Technical support is an area that needs improvement."
"The documentation could use improvement."
"Lacking in forms visualization."
"I would also like a very easy to use form builder."
"If Camunda could develop something that creates user forms that would be a great feature to have. They also need to improve the UI."
"I'm from the .NET world and I would like to use it, rather than Java."
"The user interface needs improvement. It should be more tailored to the end-user and offer a better user experience design over the user interface itself."
"The initial set up could be simplified, it's complex."
"They have a migration plugin that can be used to migrate from one BPM to another BPM. It is in the beta stage since last year. If they can make it available in the market, it would be great. We are going to have a couple of migration projects for migrating from IBM BPM to Camunda, and this plugin would be useful. I have already discussed this with them two weeks ago and asked them to look into this and add it as a feature. We are expecting this plugin to be available in the next version. This is the only requirement we have at present. They keep on coming up with different features, which is helping us a lot. Its latest release that came out last month was awesome."
Apache Airflow is ranked 2nd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 31 reviews while Camunda is ranked 1st in Business Process Management (BPM) with 69 reviews. Apache Airflow is rated 8.0, while Camunda is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Apache Airflow writes "Enable seamless integration with various connectivity and integrated services, including BigQuery and Python operators ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Camunda writes "Open-source, easy to define new processes, and easy to transition to new business process definitions". Apache Airflow is most compared with Informatica Cloud API and App Integration, IBM BPM, IBM Business Automation Workflow, AWS Step Functions and Bizagi, whereas Camunda is most compared with Bizagi, Pega BPM, IBM BPM, Appian and Bonita. See our Apache Airflow vs. Camunda report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors.
We monitor all Business Process Management (BPM) 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.