Bizagi alternatives and competitors

For the first 30 years of my career, I worked on many small projects. Since erwin was released, I used it to help develop projects up until about two years ago. At that time, I moved to a new company and I still use erwin in my current role.

When I moved to the new company, I recommended erwin and explained it to my colleagues and my clients. When the most recent version was released, I looked at the licensing and became familiar with its new features and benefits.

I have developed a couple of projects myself in the past two years, including one that had to do with mail, in Serbia, which was an interesting project. Another and the other to do with handling automotive equipment maintenance. One of the projects is something that I started from the beginning, whereas the other was reengineered with changes made and new features added.

I have also worked with erwin from a higher-level role. Rather than developing smaller projects, I have taken responsibility for a much larger project worth several million Euros.

In general, if you start using erwin from the beginning of a project then it provides a lot of benefits. You have to start with the process modeling, and then find data and create an entity, and the process continues. Essentially, you have to have something before you create the data model. However, if you're talking about reengineering a project that has existing data models or existing processes, then the benefits of using erwin are really big. You can save 50% of the time if you're working on reengineering existing processes or existing data models.

The visual data models are okay for helping to overcome data source complexity. If the project is started with erwin from the beginning then I can create the database, stored procedures, and everything that I need. However, when it comes to reengineering an existing product, and if the database changes then some of the stored procedures, as well as other things also need to change. For example, in one project, the original database was Informix and the new one is Microsoft SQL Server.

The erwin ETL functionality has room for improvement when it comes to mapping databases with a classic entity-relationship model to a data warehouse model. If you have a legacy database like Informix, Oracle, SQL Server, or something similar, then you need to create a data warehouse database. These use completely different logic and you need to create some procedures to map the tables.

The number of databases should be extended.

To have more documentation or available knowledge on how to connect is very important. This is probably the most important issue that I have experienced. Specifically, I would like more information on how to connect, how to transfer, and how to do the mapping from a legacy database.

If you try to open a file from an older version of erwin, you can only open files from one version back. This is all that they support, so they need to add the option of opening all older versions. As it is now, they push people to buy a new version every year.

We have been using erwin since the beginning when it was first released by Logic Works in 1993.

There is absolutely no problem with the stability.

In terms of scalability, there is not enough long-term support for each version of erwin. In the past, the extensions of some erwin models, or files were ER1. After that, the file extension was ERW and now it is ERAN, which created some confusion.

In my current company, I am the only person using erwin because we are not specialists in development. In my previous company, five or six people were using it.

The support is okay and I am satisfied with it. However, it's a little slower getting support for the role that I'm in now, as compared to when I was at my previous company.

In the past, the support was always okay. Within a few hours, I either had an answer or was at least speaking with them. We sent emails to discuss how to solve the problem.

Overall, I'm really satisfied with the support.

I have used several other modeling tools in the past, including SAP PowerDesigner and Bizagi. My experience with them has depended on what I needed to do. For example, Bizagi has a completely different way of developing a model. I am not satisfied with it because they don't follow the rules for relational modeling.

On the other hand, Power Designer is quite a good tool that works well. It's a complex tool that can be used for data modeling and process modeling. They use BPMN methodology and in terms of functionality, it has enough. From a cost perspective, it is cheaper than erwin.

The initial setup is straightforward, it was no problem.

The installation can be done in five minutes. The new version may take a little longer, but it is very fast.

When we have completed, we have erwin come to analyze the process.

We start with global entities, or how I can see it on a higher level without talking about the relationship model. I am looking for the relation, and foreign keys, then we search for the stored procedure and functions.

We look at the first creating the keys, the primary and alternative keys in the tables, entities, and at the end, we develop the indexing. The indexing requires daily analysis when you put the database in operation they look at the speed of everything. you can change the indexing to make your database faster.

In my previous company, there we had a really large return on investment from using erwin. In one of the systems that we re-engineered, there were more than 2,000 tables. If these had to be created from the beginning then it would have taken a really long time to collect all of the information. When it comes to reengineering, the database usually stays the same with perhaps 20% to 30% of the model being modified.

In my current company, we are trying to educate our clients on using erwin. Many of them are not using it in their everyday business. The problem is that bigger organizations, like government departments, usually want to have somebody from outside their own organization develop the solution.

The price of erwin Data Modeler is very expensive, in particular for this part of the world. I think that for the United States and Europe, the price is probably okay. However, in Serbia, the salary of an IT engineer is perhaps 50% of what it is in the United States. Because of this, erwin needs to have a different pricing model for different countries.

For example, you cannot sell products in places like Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Romania, and other places in this part of Europe at the same price as countries like Germany, Norway, or the United States. This is something that needs to change from a licensing perspective.

In terms of erwin's code generation and the accurate engineering of data sources, for some of the databases, it is quite okay. However, in others, it is not exactly following the rules of the database in the way that I want to generate the model.

There are two ways to generate a model. The first is to create a schema, which is a textual file that contains everything needed to create a complete database structure. The second is to have erwin connect to the databases directly. In this case, erwin installs and creates the database.

In some cases, it is better to first create a DB schema, which is an SQL file where you can look for syntax errors or other problems in the code. Once complete, you can create the database, including the tables and everything else.

When I start to use erwin in a project, it is normally right after I analyze the process. The second thing I do is look at the global entities, so I can view the system from a high level without dealing with the relationship model. After that, I start looking for relationships, creating the primary and alternative keys in the table. I then start looking for foreign keys. At that stage, I begin to look for stored procedures and functions. After this, I work on the creation of indexes.

The indexing needs to be analyzed daily, once the database is put into operation. This helps with database performance. When you change the indexing, the database gets faster.

My advice for anybody who is planning to use erwin is that sometimes, it should be used to develop models right from the beginning. It will depend on the project, as well as the organization and the experience that they have with erwin. It is also possible to have different people and different teams from the same company working on one model. For example, we have three development centers that are all working on the same model.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using erwin DM is that it pushes you to use the notation and methodology exactly. You must follow the rules. Several years ago, they started adding tools and options that are used to verify a model, and this functionality helps to point out mistakes in the models. Once the model is correct, you can move on to working with the databases and the specifics of each one. You can move very easily between databases such as Informix, Oracle, and MySQL, without losing much time.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

I am a lecturer at a university. We are using it as a lecturing tool for business process modeling.

We use it in a case each month on a yearly basis. We have a condensed course which runs approximately one month. During this month, we would use Signavio with some assignments for students to model their processes within Signavio Process Manager when having tutorials or computer labs tutorials on the topic of business process modeling.

There is a curriculum provided by Signavio. I enroll students into the portal, then students can go into the portal, open their folder, and design their processes there. I can oversee, discuss, and correct them. The typical case is where the students use the modeler to create processes, then we would discuss them online.

We are using the academic Signavio.com. This is an offering for academic initiatives.

This is one of the tools available for us which has a lifecycle for business process management, e.g., discovery, modeling, and optimization. This is really valuable for our students because they do not have separate tools. Everything is integrated into one tool.

Processes will always affect the outcome facing customers, so Process Manager helps optimize customer-facing processes. If you are having transparent accountable processes, then you can repair or optimize them. That way, you can clearly see what's going on within the processes, and they are more manageable. Then, you can improve and optimize them. Therefore, you improve the customer-facing outcomes.

The number one, most valuable feature is the process repository so we can gather all our processes in one place. Then, students can also see each other's work, having all the comments in one place and attached to the processes.

The process repository is proof of, or an example of, what students can achieve during one course as well as how they have improved their understanding and learning of process management. 

Process Manager supports end-to-end transformation. Students can better understand end-to-end activity and processes as well as how they are run. For teaching, it's process discovery, then modeling, and finally optimization and simulation, partly. Typically, we showcase some simulation of the processes, and this is where we finish. That is why we validate that it's properly designed, but also what are the outcomes of modeled processes. There are also options for discussion on process optimization.

Typically, a business process management suite would cover the whole lifecycle, from discovery to optimization and operations. This is running on the process server and providing some kind of low-code environment for developing business solutions. I think the latter part is missing, where SAP Connector comes in. Specifically, the execution of processes is missing, where you would design forms to take orders. This is typically part of some development environment for the process server to run processes from out of the models.

I think I have been using this solution since 2017. It has been awhile. 

It is stable. I didn't have any issues, bugs, etc. So, there have been no major issues.

I haven't had any problems in regards to scalability.

15 to 30 users are utilizing at any given time, depending on the size of the class. Typically, there are 20 users.

From time to time every year, my account expires, then it has an automated service for renewing access. This is working perfectly because I haven't had any issues with it. There are some broken links within the help section, but the solution is well worth it otherwise.

Positive

We previously used Visio for diagramming, then students would upload their processes to the discussion forum and so on. However, this did not really make things work when you would be repairing, building up processes, or collaborating on processes with teammates. There were some missing features in regards to business processes. The repository was not able to perform with Visio as well as the business process simulation. These are features that we only get with Signavio.

We also previously used the ADONIS:Community Edition. 

We switched to Signavio because we wanted students to cover the whole business process management lifecycle, from discovery to modeling to optimization as well as simulation and theoretical execution. We were looking for enterprise-grade features, like repository and simulation. We could only get this with Signavio, which is the reason why we switched.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The deployment took a month. I registered for the initiative, then they provided me access. After that, I explored the environment a bit. I needed to register my separate accounts so I could have one screen from a teaching/lecturer perspective and another screen from a student perspective. This is so I can test the environment in a manner where I can then provide some guidance for students to complete their tutorials.

I watched a couple of webinars on its deployment as well as some tutorials published within the help section of Signavio Process Modeler. These were very helpful.

We are only able to use the free academic licenses because we have a financial constraint. We are not able to pay for commercial licenses to use this kind of tool.

We did evaluate other options: Bizagi, Microsoft Visio, and ADONIS. We used these three tools prior to Signavio.

As a teacher, I need to follow developments in the field for business process management. We also reviewed IT Central Station.

The process repository is really valuable. This is something I cannot get with other tools. 

When you are selecting the business process management suite, you need to make sure that you have end-to-end coverage of the business process management lifecycle, not just to model the business processes, but also to run and optimize it. This is hard to achieve. An option is that you can check whether your selected solution supports a complete lifecycle. Another part is that you can export process models and run them on different process servers, not being locked into a certain vendor.

Students will contact the businesses, but this will be over the phone for a single session to learn about their problems, then they would design a process. However, they would not validate outcomes of the process with customers or their business contact. We can benchmark it towards some kind of business best practices, e.g., what are the typical sales processes or order to cash, but we cannot really judge the overall improvement in real life.

There is potential for students to build up a business process repository for a company that they are investigating. Typically, they would now design just one process for a certain case, but for their seminar work, they are examining a real-life business company that are typically smaller companies. They would talk to managers there, then design not one, but many complete end-to-end processes. There is also support for business process level. Therefore, we have a top-level process, then you can break that down. This is meaningful for students to have a better overview of the process landscape within certain companies.

I haven't really tried to export the processes into a process server, but this is a valuable point. What do you do with the models that you design? Obviously, the best outcome is to run it, then analyze it for potential operational outcomes. However, we are not able to do that because we don't have a platform for this.

I was not aware of SAP Journey Modeler until recently. 

I would rate it as eight out of 10.

We are using the product as an OAM that we have included in our software product. We are offering a private cloud solution and we sell it and deploy it to our customers. 

We are using it to create a low-code solution for strategic planning and performance management in order to automate the management processes such as planning, performance management, governance processes, and business process management as a whole.

We are using the BPMN engine of Camunda; we are not using the user interface. We are using just the engine, the back end of this. For us, it is working quite well.

The stability of the solution is quite good.

Technical support is good for getting alerts about bugs.

The form builder that will be utilized in the system and the data monitor both need improvement at this time. I want to exchange the data between the activity and UI basis. Currently, they are using a JSON file, which needs to be improved. We need something that can be used as a user interface and the user can make the data binding and exchange data between the activities.

This is what we did ourselves. We had the engine itself and we created a data monitor and formed it on top of it. This is what is missing in the system.

The initial setup can be complex for business users.

There occasionally be some bugs in the solution. 

The solution needs to offer more languages such as Chinese, Arabic, Hebrew, et cetera.

The system is stable. This is why we selected it. Based on other products, we've found the most appropriate results coming out from the Camunda BPM engine. It's very good.

There are occasionally a few bugs, however, we are quite capable of dealing with them.

Since we are using Camunda as a core solution, a core engine of our system, we are going to continue using it. I'm not willing to change it down the line. There's no plan for us to change it and we are not thinking about changing it. It has all functionalities and we are using about 50% of the engine itself in terms of its capability. We will continue to invest in utilizing all Camunda functionalities in the BPM engine.

In terms of technical support, we are using basic technical support as we are a technical organization. We are a software house. Our team is professional and they have experience in Java and private cloud technology. They are able to fix any issue. 

That said, there are certain bugs in Camunda. They are publishing information about them from time to time. We study the tool very carefully. Support from Camunda doesn't mean too much to us actually, as, in our organization, we have about 380 employees, and the majority of them are Java developers. We take the basic support to track the bugs only.

I also have some experience using Visio as business process management and ARIS as well as Bizagi.

We are partners of Software AG webMethods as an automation tool. We are using Mendix and OutSystems as a low-code solution. ARIS, webMethods, Mendix, and OutSystems are what we mainly use. 

You cannot compare Camunda with ARIS since ARIS is only for our documentation, business process documentation. You cannot compare it with Camunda. It is a totally different scope. However, in comparison between Mendix, OutSystems, and webMethods, they are very expensive tools and ultimately provide the same functionality, yet they are not using a pure BPMN XML. Maybe transferring the workflow between those systems doesn't work. That said, the consistency between, for example, Bonitasoft and Camunda and Bizagi is a matter of import and export. Between other systems such as webMethods and OutSystems and Mendix, for example, in webMethods, they are only still using an enhanced BPM engine mainly, meaning that they are not using the pure or the standard BPM notation. The same applies to Mendix and OutSystems.

The initial setup, for business users, is complex. If you compare it with cloud systems and Mendix, it is complicated. It has a very strong and very rigid back-end BPM engine and it's more trustworthy if XML files have been generated from Camunda. The quality of the XML file being generated from Camunda, the XML files of BPMN, is more trustworthy than other systems. That's why we selected it. This is the main reason that we selected it.

With the Camunda installer, the deployment of just the solution is pretty fast.

However, the automation process with the current functionality, meaning with the missing functionality of data monitor and data binding and with the lack of proper UI representation, it took us a year to develop those components to have a low-code solution on top of it.

Now, with our low-code solution on top, it will take us one to two days to have a visible process automated.

We are an integrator and we are consultants in business process management, and we are developing a tool on top of it. Therefore, we help our clients to implement. However, when we originally installed Camunda, we handled the process ourselves. The way we do things now, we try to make it easier for clients.

We are using a developer license. I can't speak to exactly how much we are paying, or exactly what license type that we are using. I'm not the technical lead or the solution delivery team. Therefore, I can't answer this question.

We did a lot of POCs on available products in the market, such as Bonitasoft, Camunda, Bizagi, so on. However, based on that POCs, we found that the best way to go forward in our solution in terms of the functionality and the accuracy of the XML files. If they could be generated by Camunda it can be more useful for us to adopt in our solution.

We are users of the solution.

We are the latest version due to the fact that we are developing our own product based on Camunda. We are developing a solution based on Camunda. We are a heavy user of Camunda.

Camunda is not so popular in the market due to the UI (meaning the form builder, the way of developing the forms which would be attached to the process), and the data monitor (how to exchange the data between the activities).

A company would need to create an integration framework between Camunda and other systems. If they sold their offering with the UI and data monitor it would be the biggest automation tool ever.

For us, with our experience with using the tool, you need a good developer to be able to use the system effectively. Other than that there are no issues. For an organization that wants to adopt Camunda, they need to have the proper resources, and the proper training to use the system. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. There's a bug inside the BPMN monitor that knocks a few points off the rating. If the system is not saved, it will crash.

The process modeling capabilities are what we use this for primarily.  

ARIS is probably the most mature product I know of in terms of modeling an enterprise architecture so that it has context. When you need to make changes to processes, there is a view where you can actually see what other processes within different use cases or different functional areas use the same process and what those changes can affect. Workflows can be used across different business areas and that gives a really good, holistic view of what modifications end up affecting.  

Some of the interactions with different versions of browsers caused a little bit of angst because there are certain corporate SOEs (Standard Operating Environments), which do not lend themselves well to representation in the latest version of ARIS. The product is sort of one version behind with current trends, typically.  

I have definitely seen better UIs, but the crux of why we use the ARIS process modeler is because we have everything all one suite. When you talk about enterprise architecture, application architecture, process architecture, or whatever else you want to model and monitor, these processes are all in the same place. You can make cross-references or create links between processes, you can link part of a model to an application, you can link to a capability view, et cetera. As an enterprise architecture tool, there is probably very little they can improve on at least compared to other modelers.  

Because you keep on working with different versions of a model, the only way to maintain a record is to take a snapshot. Certain things are still in design or still in the conceptualization stage. Other things have already gone into production. At a glance, it is quite hard to work out which processes are at a particular stage. The overview is very flat. Having some form of a hierarchy in terms of approvals or a sort of ranking would be good. This could show whether a process has been deployed or not, or if it is still just a conceptual model. Some sort of formal approval process that defines a released version of your models could be incorporated into the workflow approval process to help visualize what stage a process is in.  

I have probably been using ARIS (Architecture of Integrated Information Systems) BPM (Business Process Management)for about four years now. I used ARIS BPM before coming to this company, but quite a while ago. That was about a year ago, and that was version 10 or 11 or something in that range.  

Stability is very much dependent on the network. If the network is not so good, then you might experience some stability issues. It would be good if you had an offline version or some means of caching development. I am not sure whether that is in the ARIS roadmap. 

All BAs (Business Analyst) use ARIS, especially for process modeling. We have a team of probably 50 people who use ARIS modeler to see the process flows, but there are different roles. I am an architect so I can see everything. BAs can only view or read, they can not contribute to the capability models. The roles help scale out so the right people get the appropriate access without causing development issues.  

We have our own administrators here who maintain the product.  

The initial setup and installation are very straightforward. The administration is a bit clunky because of the way it is set up as a Software-as-a-Service. There was not really a Single Sign-On capability for the tool. You have to maintain your login separately and that is a little archaic.  

Because it was already running, there was not really a deployment to get me going with the product. It was just a matter of adding me as a user.  

I definitely recommend the product to users seeking this kind of solution, especially for the architecture practice. If you want to have a knowledge base or a repository for architects it is very good for an overview of the enterprise architecture. Normally in a new business venture — that being a business case, a new software offering, or a new capability — the new process needs to be introduced to an existing architecture. Companies will already have a mature backend with legacy applications and integrations. It is good to keep a repository of the development to make sure that the history of that evolution stays within the company's knowledge base for later reference.  

On a scale from one to ten (where one is the worst and ten is the best), I would rate the ARIS BPM solution overall as a product as probably an eight-out-of-ten. It is not rated higher because the user interface is not as modern as other modeling tools like Bizagi, which looks nice. With ARIS you are quite limited when it comes to the look and feel.  

That issue with look-and-feel becomes more important when you try to present something to executives. When it looks like your ten-year-old has done something to present in grammar school, it is not the right thing to be showing at a high-level meeting. The content is all there, but it just looks like it is just scraped together rather than properly designed.  

We have two primary use cases for the solution. Firstly, it's the basis for process affirmation and secondly, we use it for business process management purposes, creating documentation, doing workshops, process designs and things like that.

In Switzerland, our company has 4500 employees who can access ADONIS in read-only mode. And we have about 250 people working directly with the product. 

The support is fantastic and we have really good contact with them, it's very easy to use. It's very fast using it on the computer and there's good response time. The product is very stable. We haven't ever needed to take service breaks and we can scale it throughout our company without any problem. So it's a very good program.

One of the weak points is that you can't just export so I'd like to see an improvement in exporting features. If you're using it for the permutation within the tool, it's very good. But if you need it for creating a short documentation or a chart, it's not very good for exporting the models. On this point, they will have to be better in the future compared to Bizagi, for example.

It would be very nice if you could have a place installation so that you would not only have a centralized installation where I can access through our web, but it would be nice for me to have a local installation because I'm away a lot, but they don't do it anymore. If I don't have any WiFi connection, I can't access ADONIS.

We've been using this solution for quite a few years. Initially, we used a previous version but have been using the current version for the past two years with our new process management team. 

It's very stable.

It's very scalable.

Customer service is great. They're very good. We get all the answers we need. A good key account for our company and they support it well.

I wasn't involved in the initial setup but I believe it was very straightforward. They didn't encounter any problems installing and configuring the software. It was just a piece of cake.

I don't think this product requires a proof of concept, I think you can just go straight out and buy it. You can't do anything wrong with this tool in this field.

I would rate this product an eight out of 10.