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

Camunda vs No Magic MagicDraw comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 9, 2025

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 Business Process Design
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
77
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Management (BPM) (1st), Process Automation (1st)
No Magic MagicDraw
Ranking in Business Process Design
14th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Business Process Design category, the mindshare of Camunda is 12.5%, up from 10.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of No Magic MagicDraw is 3.2%, down from 3.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Design
 

Featured Reviews

FABIO NAGAO - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
DiegoRangel - PeerSpot reviewer
Enhanced team communication and design exploration with integrated simulation tools
I was using No Magic MagicDraw to model operations, such as using different kinds of operations with ships or crafts and other systems No Magic MagicDraw facilitated great communication within the team and allowed for the exploration of different designs and architectures, which was beneficial…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The flexibility is great."
"The most valuable features are the workflow, the task list, and the modeler where we use VPN."
"Camunda is a scalable product."
"It has an open BPM"
"We like the idea of working with Cawemo because it enables us to keep on working, remotely or not. It allows us to collaborate between areas. It's easy to model and easy to use"
"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."
"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 can easily define and deploy business processes. Camunda provides the tools that allow business people to design business processes. We don't have to have developers for it. It is so easy to use that our business people can go into the tool and model their business processes. We get time to do other things than just designing business processes."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to quickly build multiple layers within the organizational and business process environments, as well as in the SysML product environments, and converting to files that can be accessed by clients who do not have a system and a teamwork server access."
"It is pretty easy to use. It is pretty versatile."
"I would rate MagicDraw a nine out of ten because of the price. Enterprise Architect has a lot of bugs and MagicDraw is a lot more accurate and flexible. It's a level better."
"The technical support is very good."
"No Magic has the tools and capability to model a complete enterprise and all product lines."
"The most valuable feature of No Magic MagicDraw is the simulation capabilities and interface."
"It is very user-friendly, and the customer service is really good."
"The initial setup was not straightforward."
 

Cons

"The product does not have a dictionary."
"Collaborations and process documentation in Camunda Platform are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"The only drawback is the time that it takes to have a complete set of workflows implemented on the Camunda platform."
"It would be helpful to have more readily available use cases on the internet. Camunda's documentation feels less comprehensive."
"The solution could use some enhancements like adding connectors, improving forms and having a mobile app, but everything is an enhancement rather than a flaw."
"It lacks some preset features and configurations which would make it more plug-and-play for customers."
"They could provide more documentation regarding the integration of different programming languages."
"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."
"One potential area for improvement is the recommendation feature. At times, we face challenges in locating specific features, and we have to reach out for assistance in finding the information we need."
"When I am working with my Mac and I right-click to copy and paste, it doesn't work."
"It's very focused on specific modern languages and it doesn't do necessarily general systems software engineering with diagrams. They should expand the diagram types for the languages."
"Some of No Magic MagicDraw's most valuable features were its integration with other simulation tools, such as MATLAB, the seasonal plugin, and the Rangel simulation toolkit."
"The documentation for MagicDraw and the video tutorials compared to other competitors is an area for improvement."
"There are some technical features that you have to study and do research on to be able to understand."
"The UI UX of the tool is not really user-friendly and needs to be completely reformed."
"For the next releases, I would like to have them import requirements from other sources. They could make it very easy to do that because there are a lot requirements management tools like DOORS, D-O-O-R-S, Dynamic Object Oriented Management. A lot of folks use DOORS to create a requirement. For those requirements you allocate them to a component in the architecture and a verification method for that requirement. It would be good if we could import those into MagicDraw as components so you don't have to manually do these things."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We use the open-source version, which can be used at no cost."
"Its price is decent. Everything is included in the license. The Community version is also good to start with. We are using the Community version."
"Licensing costs are anywhere from $80,000 to $100,000 USD per year."
"Camunda is much cheaper."
"We use Camunda's community edition, which is free."
"The open-source version of the product is free to use."
"We're using the open-source version for now."
"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."
"In addition to the initial cost, you have to pay annually for support in order to get the upgrades."
"The licensing is on a yearly basis, and it's expensive."
"I rate the pricing a ten out of ten. It is an expensive product compared to software for model-based system engineering."
"I would say licensing would be anywhere from $3,500 to $6,500 per person or per seat (it's a per seat style license)."
"The price of No Magic MagicDraw could improve. The price of the solution is too expensive for smaller-sized companies. There should be a better pricing model."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Design solutions are best for your needs.
848,716 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
27%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Government
6%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Government
15%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
11%
Financial Services Firm
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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...
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...
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...
What do you like most about No Magic MagicDraw?
There is a lot of documentation available on the Internet to understand its functionality.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for No Magic MagicDraw?
Maybe the price is a little bit high for a small company to acquire this tool. However, they offer trial versions and trial licenses for members of INCOSE.
What needs improvement with No Magic MagicDraw?
I don't think there are areas that need improvement.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Camunda BPM
MagicDraw
 

Overview

 

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
Northrop Grumman, Labcorp, Deposco, ClearView Training, IT Services Promotion Agency, Intelligent Chaos, Metalithic Systems Inc., Sodifrance
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda vs. No Magic MagicDraw and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
848,716 professionals have used our research since 2012.