Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

AuraQuantic vs Temporal comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

AuraQuantic
Ranking in Process Automation
18th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Management (BPM) (21st), Low-Code Development Platforms (17th), No-Code Development Platforms (6th), Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) (11th)
Temporal
Ranking in Process Automation
7th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Featured Reviews

Emilio Valle - PeerSpot reviewer
Responsive support, easy to use, and reliable
It helped a lot when we started using it with more images. Before, it was basic. With images, it's more effective. Users consider it more animated and user-friendly. We can easily track a process and know exactly where a process is. It's a low-code application. The solution is very easy to use. It is stable and reliable. The solution scales well. Technical support is extremely responsive.
AbhishekDash - PeerSpot reviewer
Orchestrates infrastructure tasks like deployment, deletion, and management
Temporal focus on developers rather than business users. In contrast to older workflow orchestration engines like Camunda, which are more business-oriented and strongly emphasize UI and workflow authoring, Temporal is geared toward developers. It provides extensive capabilities for building complex workflows. A standout feature of Temporal is its handling of long-running workflows, a significant advantage over many other solutions. Temporal excels in managing distributed transactions and application state durability, especially in microservice environments where transactions might fail due to network issues. Temporal simplifies these challenges by managing retries, fail-safes, and circuit breakers. As a result, developers don't need to implement these features manually; Temporal handles them implicitly, though it also allows for tuning based on specific needs.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"AuraQuantic's most valuable features are the zero code, user-friendly mode, and integration."
"AuraPortal is very user-friendly and flexible."
"AuraPortal has the best price for its process."
"It's a low-code application."
"It is very useful for long-running workflows."
"What I like best about Temporal is its durable execution, which means you don't need to write many boilerplate code for critical pieces, especially for retries. It also has great observability and a nice dashboard to see issues without digging into logs. The interface for viewing activities is excellent, with good tracing that shows how long activities took and what ran, making it almost perfect for debugging."
"Temporal allows retryability for different workflows whenever they fail. It helps ensure idempotence and that things get done."
"It's easy to get started and user-friendly."
"The solution's most valuable features include its ability to simplify the management of complex workflows, improve system resilience and fault tolerance, and reduce the need for extensive boilerplate code."
"The initial setup is easy."
"Temporal focus on developers rather than business users."
"We like the fact that the whole process is durable, which is very useful to us."
 

Cons

"One thing that could be improved would be for it to be deployed in a shorter time."
"AuraQuantic's price could be improved."
"More documentation and the ability to extract different reports about different relations in the objects I use will help."
"We'd like it more animated. It would be useful if we could integrate GIFs, for example."
"Temporal lacks many resources, like YouTube videos, which users can use to learn or refer to if they get stuck with the solution."
"While the tool can be a bit daunting initially, especially if you're not used to async programming models, it's generally a pleasure. There's always room for improvement, though. I've noticed some limitations with the .NET SDK regarding dynamic workflows, but this might have been improved in recent versions. Overall, I think Temporal could be more open about implementing features in a more—.NET-friendly way, especially in how you add workers and clients."
"We previously faced issues with the solution's patch system."
"Developers often mention the desire for a more intuitive visualization of workflow states."
"Retro compatibility needs improvement. Sometimes, when we make new changes to a workflow, it fails if it is not configured properly due to compatibility issues."
"There are areas where Temporal could improve. For instance, calling multiple microservices with Temporal introduces latency due to workflow registration and analytics overhead."
"One area for the product improvement is the learning curve."
"Temporal could be improved by making it more user-friendly for beginners and non-technical staff, ensuring easier integration and usability across different use cases."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price could be better. It's quite expensive."
"Temporal is a free, open-source tool."
"The savings weren't as big as we initially expected, but they were pretty great from a developer's perspective."
"Temporal is open-source and free to use, which is great. We didn't have to pay for any premium features."
"The tool is open source under the MIT license, so there are no hidden fees. You can freely use everything on their GitHub and Docker images."
"It is worth the price."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Process Automation solutions are best for your needs.
847,625 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
14%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Government
10%
Financial Services Firm
27%
Computer Software Company
18%
Retailer
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for AuraQuantic?
I do not handle the licensing. I do not have direct knowledge of the pricing. It's not within the scope of my work.
What needs improvement with AuraQuantic?
We're just using images. We'd like it more animated. It would be useful if we could integrate GIFs, for example. There could be more adoptions. We'd like the option to connect this product with oth...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Temporal?
Temporal OSS is expensive in infrastructure, but it brings back the reliability that companies need.
What needs improvement with Temporal?
The actual user interface is still in its early stages. It’s very basic. Users don’t really have a complex permission model yet. Users don’t really have ways to automate things like, for example, p...
What is your primary use case for Temporal?
We [my company] use it to run a large workload. We have a set of security scans we want to perform, and we distribute them over a full day, that’s over 24 hours. We use it to orchestrate all the st...
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Nissan, RSA Chile, New Millennia Group Plc (UK), TOYOTA, ArcelorMittal Brasil, KPN, Farmacia Luis Corbi, Farmacia del Paseo, Frutas Bean, IncAE Business School, BDO Argentina, Refinery of the Pacific, Balfego Grup, Fundacion Seneca, Technological Institute Maranosa, Coprusa Group, Constructec, University of Deusto, Tenco Shopping Centers, Spanish Railways Foundation, Arbora & Ausonia.
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about AuraQuantic vs. Temporal and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
847,625 professionals have used our research since 2012.