Camunda vs Flowable comparison

Camunda and Flowable are both solutions in the Process Automation category. Camunda is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.3, while Flowable is ranked #20 with an average rating of 7.0. Camunda holds a 28.0% mindshare in PA, compared to Flowable’s 5.7% mindshare. Additionally, 89% of Camunda users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Flowable users who would recommend it.

Camunda

Read 77 Camunda reviews

15,091 Views
10,176 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Flowable

Read 1 Flowable review

1,325 Views
1,161 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Camunda

Flowable

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Camunda and Flowable based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Pega, BMC and others in Process Automation.

To learn more, read our detailed Process Automation Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Process Automation

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 849,190 peers since 2012

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

Camunda

Ranking in Process Automation

1st

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Business Process Design (1st), Business Process Management (BPM) (1st)

Flowable

Ranking in Process Automation

20th

Average Rating

7.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Process Automation category, the mindshare of Camunda is 28.0%, up from 27.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Flowable is 5.7%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Process Automation

Featured Reviews

FABIO NAGAO

Chief Technology Officer at Looplex SA

Reduces costs with hardware abstraction and simplifies scaling

There is an issue where, in some situations, I need to scale up by observing both CPU and memory usage of containers, yet under the current options available at Amazon, this is not possible. I have to choose between monitoring CPU or memory to scale my solution. Not every software is built for deployment as a container service, although the current architecture trend is changing this.

Read full review

Simon Greener

Solutions Architect at Cohga Pty Ltd

Helps to control the workflow and business process components of customers' operations but OSGi integration can be challenging

I'd rate my experience with the initial setup of Flowable at about a three out of ten, but for our developers, it's probably closer to a six. I found it challenging due to the complexity of the user and help documents and the fact that much of the Flowable documentation and tutorials are focused on cloud-based implementations. Since we're primarily interested in basic components like BPMN models and form design, which aren't included in the product, the learning process was more difficult for me. In contrast, our developers are more comfortable diving into the code and technology stack, which allows them to be more proactive in their approach. The deployment took three months to complete. We're still in the deployment process. Our main challenge is integrating the Flowable process engine into our product, which uses OSGi. This has led to complexity in managing the Java versions and dependencies, as the tool has around 150 Java files. We could have chosen to interact with Flowable via a Docker container and the REST API, which would have isolated the OSGi Java dependencies, but we decided to integrate it directly. This has required resolving Java version control issues and upgrades, leading to various development challenges that must be addressed. It is a learning process for all of us. As an integrated solutions architect, I would have probably opted for the Docker route rather than the direct OSGi integration chosen by the developers. However, since they went with the OSGi integration, it's taking us longer to complete the deployment. Currently, we have one full-time developer dedicated to deployment, along with one part-time developer, and my involvement at about a quarter of my time. So, we have about two people working on deployment. As for maintenance, we're not entirely sure yet. Given our direct OSGi integration choice instead of Docker and REST, maintenance may be more challenging. However, we'll have a clearer picture once deployment is complete.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The platform's approach to BPMN modeling is straightforward and versatile, making it easy to adopt and use effectively."

"Ease of use and ability to streamline a process model."

"Being able to use a Java-based solution makes the product flexible."

"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."

"Easy to use and easy to integrate into the products and applications we provide for our customers."

"The UI is very user-friendly compared to other products. The native, vanilla UI is very interesting and intuitive to use. It's user-friendly when it comes to modernizing a business process."

"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."

"On a scale of one to ten, I rate ECS a ten out of ten."

More Camunda pros

"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."

Cons

"When you search for Camunda BPM resources or books on how to utilize Camunda BPM, it is lacking. When it comes to Alfresco, there are thousands of resources that can help you to utilize within AWS and its Group Services. I would like to see the usage of Camunda BPM on Amazon Web Services be improved."

"The user interface needs some polishing because it is too technical for end-users to use it."

"The deployment model could be improved for easier implementation. More open documentation would be beneficial to understand the deployment process better and facilitate easier setup."

"When building interfaces, there are limited tools to work with, especially when dealing with different types of tasks, such as user tasks and system tasks."

"If they could build some scripts or some configuration to get it up and running in a Docker environment, that would be good. I didn't find anything when on Docker, however, maybe they have something and I didn't see it yet."

"The only drawback is the time that it takes to have a complete set of workflows implemented on the Camunda platform."

"I would like to see the forms engine available in the open-source version of this solution."

"Like all BPM tools, they're very bad with proprietary UIs. In general, anyone who uses BPM tools should not expect to use their proprietary UI."

More Camunda cons

"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."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We are using the open-source version, free of charge. We didn't bother with the enterprise features."

"It is less cost-prohibitive than other solutions on the market. This solution was in our price range."

"We're using the open-source version for now."

"In Africa, the cost of deployment is an important factor to consider since it adds to the overall cost. This might be the only drawback to using it."

"I think Camunda BPM can improve their licensing costs. It isn't easy to find clients with Camunda BPM licenses mainly because it's quite expensive."

"I tried to get some information about buying the license for the solution, but I found it kind of hard to understand the business model."

"Compared to other software, Camunda Platform is quite cost-effective."

"We are using the open-source version of this solution."

More Camunda pricing and cost advice

"Since the tool is open-source, we don't have to pay anything for it. It's free to download and use, which is great for us. If Flowable hadn't been available as open source and required a license fee for us to integrate it into our product, we might not have chosen it."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Process Automation solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

849,190 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

27%

Computer Software Company

14%

Government

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

29%

Computer Software Company

19%

Manufacturing Company

University

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

How does Bonita compare with Camunda Platform?

One of the things we like best about Bonita is that you can create without coding - it is a low-code platform. With Bonita, you can build the entire mechanism using the GUI, it’s that simple. You c...

See all answers

Which do you prefer - Appian or Camunda Platform?

Appian is fast when building simple to medium solutions. This solution offers simple drag-and-drop functionality with easy plug-and-play options. The initial setup was seamless and very easy to imp...

See all answers

Which would you choose - Camunda Platform or Apache Airflow?

Camunda Platform allows for visual demonstration and presentation of business process flows. The flexible Java-based option was a big win for us and allows for the integration of microservices very...

See all answers

What do you like most about Flowable?

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.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Flowable?

Since the tool is open-source, we don't have to pay anything for it. It's free to download and use, which is great for us. If Flowable hadn't been available as open source and required a license fe...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Flowable?

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 Fl...

See all answers

Comparisons

Apache Airflow vs Camunda

Compared 11% of the time

Bizagi vs Camunda

Compared 8% of the time

Temporal vs Camunda

Compared 7% of the time

IBM BPM vs Camunda

Compared 7% of the time

Bonita vs Camunda

Compared 6% of the time

More Camunda Competitors

Temporal vs Flowable

Compared 17% of the time

Bonita vs Flowable

Compared 6% of the time

Pega Platform vs Flowable

Compared 3% of the time

Oracle BPEL vs Flowable

Compared 2% of the time

Nintex Process Platform vs Flowable

Compared 1% of the time

More Flowable Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Camunda

April 2025

Download Camunda product report

Buyer's Guide

Process Automation

April 2025

Download Flowable product report

Also Known As

Camunda BPM

No data available

Overview

Camunda enables organizations to orchestrate processes across people, systems, and devices to continuously overcome complexity and increase efficiency. A common visual language enables seamless collaboration between business and IT teams to design, automate, and improve end-to-end processes with the required speed, scale, and resilience to remain competitive. Hundreds of enterprises such as Atlassian, ING, and Vodafone orchestrate business-critical processes with Camunda to accelerate digital transformation. To learn more visit camunda.com.

Camunda

Flowable is a versatile software that streamlines and automates business processes. It is commonly used for workflow management, task automation, and digital transformation initiatives.

Users also utilize Flowable for document management, case management, and customer journey mapping. Its valuable features include efficient workflow management, seamless integration capabilities, and a user-friendly interface.

Flowable allows for smooth collaboration and task automation, and its ability to integrate with other systems and applications enables a seamless flow of information.

The intuitive and easy-to-use interface makes it accessible to users of all technical backgrounds.

Flowable

Sample Customers

24 Hour Fitness, Accruent, AT&T Inc., Atlassian, CSS Insurance, Deutsche Telekom, Generali, Provinzial NordWest Insurance Services, Swisscom AG, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, VHV Group, Zalando

1. Adobe 2. BMW 3. Cisco 4. Dell 5. Ericsson 6. Ford 7. General Electric 8. Honda 9. IBM 10. Johnson & Johnson 11. Kia Motors 12. LG Electronics 13. Microsoft 14. Nike 15. Oracle 16. PepsiCo 17. Qualcomm 18. Red Bull 19. Samsung 20. Toyota 21. Uber 22. Visa 23. Walmart 24. Xerox 25. Yahoo 26. Zara 27. Accenture 28. Bank of America 29. Citigroup 30. Deutsche Bank 31. ExxonMobil 32. Facebook

Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Pega, BMC and others in Process Automation. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

849,190 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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.