We performed a comparison between Apache Airflow and IBM Case Foundation based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Management (BPM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Apache Airflow is in Python language, making it easy to use and learn."
"The initial setup was straightforward and it does not take long to complete."
"The solution's UI allows me to collect all the information and see the code lines."
"Since Apache works very well on Python, we can manage everything and create pipelines there."
"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."
"Its user-friendly interface makes it straightforward to operate, offering a plethora of features for data preparation, buffering, and format conversion."
"We have been quite satisfied with the stability of the solution."
"This is a simple tool to automate using Python."
"The most valuable feature is its stability, which is why we are using it."
"The most valuable features are those involving decision making, analysis, and anything related to event documents because those processes are related to content as well."
"It provides us the capability of producing business processes for documents that are launched immediately when a document comes into the repository."
"The client and the IBM content navigation are the solution's most valuable features."
"The most valuable feature is the content manager part of the file as it is very stable, robust, and reliable."
"The solution is scalable."
"Case Foundation provides a strong security boost."
"The content management is great."
"The scalability of the solution itself is not as we expected. Being on the cloud, it should be easy to scale, however, it's not."
"We cannot run real-time jobs in the solution."
"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."
"Programmatically, it's very good, and it doesn't have any competitors, but you cannot develop anything in Airflow UI. You need to develop everything within the program. In the market, other tools have come up recently as competitors to Airflow, and they also give graphical programming options, whereas Airflow doesn't provide that feature currently. All the DAGs you want to build need to be coded in Python."
"The problem with Apache Airflow is that it is an open-source tool. You have to build it into a Kubernetes container, which is not easy to maintain, and I find it to be very clunky."
"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."
"The documentation must be improved."
"The graphical user interface can be improved."
"IBM needs to update the user interfaces of all its products to make them more intuitive and accessible to beginners. Compared to Microsoft products, IBM solutions are less user-friendly. IBM programs are hard to master. It's a problem in my region because it's hard to find IT staff who can work with IBM."
"We are now using microservices but there are some areas where the coordination with FileNet is problematic."
"There is a need for more open and flexible integration capabilities, allowing seamless collaboration with a broader spectrum of business process management solutions, beyond the confines of IBM's document management offerings."
"There are some features that could be enhanced like the document viewer"
"The place of improvement is merging or combining all of the workflow functionality into one seamless tool. Now, there are multiple installations that are different. Case Foundation, before you can put Case Manager and you've got IBM BPM, and the roadmap is there to merge them altogether. But that's the struggle at the moment, it's having multiple installations and disparate workflow applications."
"90% of the feedback we receive states that the UI is not very user-friendly."
"The service as it currently stands is out-of-date and lacks flexibility."
"The cloud version could use more stability."
Apache Airflow is ranked 2nd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 31 reviews while IBM Case Foundation is ranked 22nd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 12 reviews. Apache Airflow is rated 8.0, while IBM Case Foundation is rated 7.8. 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 IBM Case Foundation writes "Streamlined business process automation with user-friendly design". Apache Airflow is most compared with Camunda, Informatica Cloud API and App Integration, IBM BPM, IBM Business Automation Workflow and AWS Step Functions, whereas IBM Case Foundation is most compared with IBM Business Automation Workflow. See our Apache Airflow vs. IBM Case Foundation 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.
