We performed a comparison between Camunda and Flowable based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Pega, Appian and others in Process Automation."When I compare it with other BPM tools, like IBM, it is great, open source, and free when you use the community version."
"We are using the BPMN engine of Camunda; we are not using the user interface. We are using just the engine, the back end of this. For us, it is working quite well."
"It's user friendly, much better than most tools I have seen."
"We have the ability to modify the product if we need to, and that comes in handy whenever we need to add new functionality and features."
"We are documenting all of the processors and VPN. Then we are sharing it with our business users."
"Easy to use and easy to integrate into the products and applications we provide for our customers."
"The most valuable feature is that, with a visual system, you can try to have a process client before beginning the programming for the application."
"It is simple to use. The user experience is very good."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the process engine. It allows us to define BPM-based workflows, deploy them into our process engine, and interact with them within our product."
"If there were some industry templates it would have helped significantly, because it is similar to a process map for a domain. That is what we are currently creating, a domain-relevant process map."
"Camunda Platform's customer support could be improved because their response is quite slow."
"If Camunda could develop something that creates user forms that would be a great feature to have. They also need to improve the UI."
"Collaborations and process documentation in Camunda Platform are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"Lacking in forms visualization."
"The documentation could use improvement."
"There should be a multi-tenant solution for the platform where it supports multiple organizations on one platform instead of having to spin up multiple clusters for each organization. There should be an easy way to integrate different departments into one platform without having to operate multiple platforms. The operations should be easier with the enterprise solution. It should not create more overhead for the operations people."
"The only drawback is the time that it takes to have a complete set of workflows implemented on the Camunda platform."
"In my opinion, areas of improvement for Flowable include the management and creation of forms within the open-source components and the documentation and examples provided. While the cloud-based Flowable implementation with no-code features is attractive, we prefer more control over integration, especially since we deploy our product onto AWS. We also want to avoid additional licensing fees for Flowable runtime user components on top of our software development and implementation charges."
Camunda is ranked 1st in Process Automation with 69 reviews while Flowable is ranked 25th in Process Automation with 1 review. Camunda is rated 8.2, while Flowable is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Camunda writes "Open-source, easy to define new processes, and easy to transition to new business process definitions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Flowable writes "Helps to control the workflow and business process components of customers' operations but OSGi integration can be challenging ". Camunda is most compared with Apache Airflow, Bizagi, Pega BPM, IBM BPM and Appian, whereas Flowable is most compared with Bonita.
See our list of best Process Automation vendors.
We monitor all Process Automation 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.
