Camunda vs Fabasoft PROCECO comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Camunda
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
1st
Ranking in Process Automation
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Number of Reviews
71
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (2nd)
Fabasoft PROCECO
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
51st
Ranking in Process Automation
47th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
Contract Management Software (38th)
 

Market share comparison

As of June 2024, in the Business Process Management (BPM) category, the market share of Camunda is 23.0% and it increased by 5.9% compared to the previous year. The market share of Fabasoft PROCECO is 0.0% and it increased by 118.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Management (BPM)
Unique Categories:
Business Process Design
12.3%
Process Automation
31.3%
 

Featured Reviews

AJ
Sep 19, 2022
Process diagrams help stakeholders understand processes, and connectors enable us to standardize our integrations
The integration with almost any language, product, and even human tasks, is valuable. It's very seamless to integrate into existing systems. It doesn't require you to rewrite a lot of your existing system. That's where it really stands out. We have used a couple of connectors, including the Kafka connector a lot because we have mostly a Kafka-based architecture. The connectors are really seamless. They just fit in. They don't require you to make a lot of changes to your existing infrastructure. That's what connectors are primarily meant for, to enable enterprise-level integrations. We also build out custom connectors for our use cases. In addition to Kafka, we can easily integrate it using any microservice or legacy microservice. All you need to do is include their library and put in a couple of annotations on your existing methods, and they can act as Camunda workers. You can transform your existing code into Zeebe components and that requires very minimal coding. We are also working on building more connectors, and that will smooth out further adoption of this technology within our ecosystem. We can orchestrate almost any remote system if it's accessible over the network and it implements any protocol. If it's reachable, we should be able to orchestrate it via the Camunda platform. In terms of its ease of use for engineers, it's pretty easy. We have an engineer who joined us two weeks back and he has been onboarded. He's able to make changes in the BPMN. That's very important for modifying business processes.
Use Fabasoft PROCECO?
Share your opinion

Quotes from Members

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

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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."
"It is good for a startup. When we started, its price was fair, but the way we are using it to orchestrate microservices makes it expensive. When you are growing as a company, you would have more microservices, and you would have more users. There is an exponential effect when you are growing in terms of the number of conditions, processes, and users because they bill you per process. So, the price was increasing very quickly for us, and it was very difficult."
"It is less cost-prohibitive than other solutions on the market. This solution was in our price range."
"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."
"We're using the open-source version for now."
"The open-source version of the product is free to use."
"When compared with the proprietary products, the pricing costs are much less, even though it is an enterprise edition."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Management (BPM) solutions are best for your needs.
787,061 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
26%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
6%
No data available
 

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...
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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Also Known As

Camunda BPM
No data available
 

Learn More

Video not available
Video not available
 

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
Novell GmbH, Red Hat, EMC_ Computer Systems Austria, GRAU Storage Data AG, Microsoft Corporation, Network Appliance, Cisco Systems Austria GmbH
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Apache, Pega and others in Business Process Management (BPM). Updated: June 2024.
787,061 professionals have used our research since 2012.