We performed a comparison between Camunda and WorkflowGen based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Design solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product has a good task management engine."
"Ease of use and ability to streamline a process model."
"The most valuable feature of Camunda Platform is its Microservices architecture, which is easily integrable with APIs."
"The BPMN diagram is valuable. For our use case of transferring money from one account to another, the connections have to be done in the traditional financial ways. There are a lot of unexpected errors and a lot of instability with this kind of system, and we are using Camunda in order to have clear flows. With BPMN, I can show a flow to my business partner, and the business team can easily understand what's going on. The technical team can understand what the implementation is, and we can model different errors and the process for recovering from these errors."
"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"
", Camunda can be a powerful tool to work with when used in an optimized and well-implemented manner."
"It is an absolutely stable solution."
"We have a lot of users, almost 1,800, and we needed something affordable, stable and something that could be used by a large financial company. This solution truly fit the bill."
"We use it a lot for creating workflows to transfer materials between plants, which is a signature part of what we do."
"The primary issue regarding the Camuto platform is its high cost of training. This is why I haven't discussed it extensively, as compared to other products that are more affordable in terms of developer training."
"It lacks some preset features and configurations which would make it more plug-and-play for customers."
"The product's initial setup phase is difficult for beginners."
"Would be helpful if there were additional out-of-the-box activities."
"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."
"There are a few things that I'm missing. For instance, the user interface creator, which I know other systems have, like Aurea or Lombardi, which are IBM solutions. The interface creator, including the data model creator or some module which would allow the users who are not programmers or business consultants and who are not technically skilled in database and Java programming, to create data models and user interfaces."
"Community support is basically what I'm looking for. Other than that, it is okay for now."
"It's costly and not accessible for small enterprises or startups. It would be great if Camunda offered a tier plan for smaller companies."
"This solution needs to be more customizable."
Earn 20 points
Camunda is ranked 2nd in Business Process Design with 71 reviews while WorkflowGen is ranked 29th in Business Process Design. Camunda is rated 8.2, while WorkflowGen is rated 7.6. 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 WorkflowGen writes "Good for automatically triggering workflows, but needs to be more customizable". Camunda is most compared with Apache Airflow, Bizagi, Pega BPM, IBM BPM and Appian, whereas WorkflowGen is most compared with . See our Camunda vs. WorkflowGen report.
See our list of best Business Process Design vendors, best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors, and best Process Automation vendors.
We monitor all Business Process Design 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.
