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 #21 with an average rating of 7.0. Camunda holds a 28.1% mindshare in PA, compared to Flowable’s 5.2% 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

15,319 Views
10,283 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Flowable

Read 1 Flowable review

1,159 Views
1,029 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, BMC, Pega and others in Process Automation.

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

Buyer's Guide

Process Automation

March 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 842,296 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

21st

Average Rating

7.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2025, in the Process Automation category, the mindshare of Camunda is 28.1%, up from 27.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Flowable is 5.2%, up from 0.4% 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

"Using the BPMN helps us to have a common shared communication language when discussing processes."

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

"It is a scalable product. I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten."

"The number of client implementations and cross-language capabilities to support multiple frameworks is very pluggable compared to Pega. It's also more portable."

"It is simple to use. The user experience is very good."

"Having knowledge of the BPM and monitoring process has proven to be very beneficial, as I am currently engaged in documenting processes for Clientele."

"The best feature is the automation."

"It is an absolutely stable solution."

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

"Without a proper frontend, the business cannot effectively use the platform."

"As we experienced some difficulties in the beginning, deployment took almost a month."

"Would be helpful if there were additional out-of-the-box activities."

"Especially when you use the open-source version, there are issues with performance."

"The business model could be easier to understand."

"I don't like the UI of the Camunda Platform, I have found the Signavio solution to be much better for me to create the process designs and execute them. Additionally, I have found the tools in the Camunda Platform are not compatible with some of my other tools. They should improve this in the future."

"Lacking in forms visualization."

"The support offered by the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."

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 pay for the license of this solution annually."

"The evaluation of my customers on pricing is that it is reasonable."

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

"I use the open-source free version."

"The price of the solution is reasonable."

"We're using the free version. We used the Enterprise version for some time. If I compare free versus what we paid at that time, the Enterprise version costs a lot. For the additional functionality that we got with the Enterprise version, it was too costly."

"The product's price depends on the number of processes that need to be automated or where the orchestration part needs to be used. The product is affordable for medium and large enterprises."

"The license is quite expensive, which is why we went with the community version."

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

842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

27%

Computer Software Company

14%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Financial Services Firm

29%

Computer Software Company

21%

Manufacturing Company

Retailer

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 12% of the time

Bizagi vs Camunda

Compared 9% of the time

IBM BPM vs Camunda

Compared 7% of the time

Bonita vs Camunda

Compared 7% of the time

Temporal vs Camunda

Compared 7% of the time

More Camunda Competitors

Temporal vs Flowable

Compared 17% of the time

Bonita vs Flowable

Compared 7% 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

March 2025

Download Camunda product report

Buyer's Guide

Process Automation

March 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, BMC, Pega and others in Process Automation. Updated: March 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

842,296 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.