We performed a comparison between Apache Airflow and Camunda Platform based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Camunda Platform has an edge over Apache Airflow in this comparison. It is easier to deploy and is scalable and robust. However, Apache Airflow users are overall more satisfied with the pricing of the product.
"The product integrates well with other pipelines and solutions."
"Since it's widely adopted by the community, Apache Airflow is a user-friendly solution."
"I found the following features very useful: DAG - Workload management and orchestration of tasks using."
"Development on Apache Airflow is really fast, and it's easy to use with the newer updates. Everything is in Python, so it's not hard to understand. They also have a graphical view, so if you are not a programmer and you are just an administrator, you can easily track everything and see if everything is working or not."
"This is a simple tool to automate using Python."
"The solution is quite configurable so it is easy to code within a configuration kind of environment."
"The most valuable feature of Apache Airflow is creating and scheduling jobs. Additionally, the reattempt at failed jobs is useful."
"We have been quite satisfied with the stability of the solution."
"The most valuable feature of Camunda Platform is its Microservices architecture, which is easily integrable with APIs."
"Camunda Platform is better than IBM BPM, and Azure. It is more elaborate."
"The flexibility characteristic in a BPMS, through BPMN and DMN, is undoubtedly the most interesting feature for our business."
"Overall, the solution has been very solid."
"The modeler is useful for creating the flow. The way to access the data through their REST API is also valuable. This is what we're using right now."
"The most valuable features are that it's lightweight, can be embedded in existing Java code, and keeps track of the workflow state and the instances that we need."
"Easy to use and easy to integrate into the products and applications we provide for our customers."
"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."
"The automation capabilities could be improved; a visual workflow designer and a graphical tool to reduce coding would be very helpful. But for now, it's sufficient for our simple workflows."
"We have faced scenarios where Apache Airflow becomes non-responsive, leading to job failures. To resolve such situations, we had to manually reboot Apache Airflow since it doesn't provide an option to restart within the application. This necessitated modifying some configurations to initiate a restart of all Apache Airflow components. Although Apache Airflow is generally dependable, it may occasionally encounter glitches that can disrupt production flows and batches."
"The documentation must be improved."
"There is an area for improvement in onboarding new people. They should make it simple for newcomers. Else, we have to put a senior engineer to operate it."
"We're currently using version 1.10, but I understand that there's a lot of improvements in version 2. In the earlier version that we're using, we sometimes have problems with maintenance complexity. Actually using Airflow is okay, but maintaining it has been difficult."
"Apache Airflow should have better integration with cloud platforms."
"Apache Airflow could be improved with the addition of more frameworks."
"The solution could be improved by simplifying the integration process."
"The user interface needs improvement. It should be more tailored to the end-user and offer a better user experience design over the user interface itself."
"In the future, I would like to see better transactional integrity."
"I would like to have a feature for audit logging, audit logs and audit log management. And some history of use for the audit logs."
"When you search for Camunda BPM resources or books on how to utilize Camunda BPM, it is lacking. When it comes to Alfresco, there are thousands of resources that can help you to utilize within AWS and its Group Services. I would like to see the usage of Camunda BPM on Amazon Web Services be improved."
"The user interface needs some polishing because it is too technical for end-users to use it."
"In terms of features, it meets my needs, but I would like Camunda to have an office in Brazil and provide training in Portuguese. They should provide regional support and training courses in Portuguese."
"While it's very scalable, it would be great if auto-scaling capabilities were added to it... one area that really could help out would be to have dynamic resizing of the cluster. Right now, you have to do capacity planning."
"Camunda Platform's customer support could be improved because their response is quite slow."
Apache Airflow is ranked 2nd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 31 reviews while Camunda is ranked 1st in Business Process Management (BPM) with 67 reviews. Apache Airflow is rated 8.0, while Camunda is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Apache Airflow writes "Enable seamless integration with various connectivity and integrated services, including BigQuery and Python operators ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Camunda writes "Open-source, easy to define new processes, and easy to transition to new business process definitions". Apache Airflow is most compared with Informatica Cloud API and App Integration, IBM BPM, IBM Business Automation Workflow, AWS Step Functions and Bizagi, whereas Camunda is most compared with Bizagi, Pega BPM, IBM BPM, Appian and Bonita. See our Apache Airflow vs. Camunda report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors.
We monitor all Business Process Management (BPM) 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.
