Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

AuraQuantic vs Flowable comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

AuraQuantic
Ranking in Process Automation
18th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Management (BPM) (19th), Low-Code Development Platforms (19th), No-Code Development Platforms (12th), Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) (12th)
Flowable
Ranking in Process Automation
21st
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Process Automation category, the mindshare of AuraQuantic is 0.6%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Flowable is 6.7%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Process Automation
 

Featured Reviews

Emilio Valle - PeerSpot reviewer
Responsive support, easy to use, and reliable
It helped a lot when we started using it with more images. Before, it was basic. With images, it's more effective. Users consider it more animated and user-friendly. We can easily track a process and know exactly where a process is. It's a low-code application. The solution is very easy to use. It is stable and reliable. The solution scales well. Technical support is extremely responsive.
Simon Greener - PeerSpot reviewer
Helps to control the workflow and business process components of customers' operations but OSGi integration can be challenging
I'd rate my experience with the initial setup of Flowable at about a three out of ten, but for our developers, it's probably closer to a six. I found it challenging due to the complexity of the user and help documents and the fact that much of the Flowable documentation and tutorials are focused on cloud-based implementations. Since we're primarily interested in basic components like BPMN models and form design, which aren't included in the product, the learning process was more difficult for me. In contrast, our developers are more comfortable diving into the code and technology stack, which allows them to be more proactive in their approach. The deployment took three months to complete. We're still in the deployment process. Our main challenge is integrating the Flowable process engine into our product, which uses OSGi. This has led to complexity in managing the Java versions and dependencies, as the tool has around 150 Java files. We could have chosen to interact with Flowable via a Docker container and the REST API, which would have isolated the OSGi Java dependencies, but we decided to integrate it directly. This has required resolving Java version control issues and upgrades, leading to various development challenges that must be addressed. It is a learning process for all of us. As an integrated solutions architect, I would have probably opted for the Docker route rather than the direct OSGi integration chosen by the developers. However, since they went with the OSGi integration, it's taking us longer to complete the deployment. Currently, we have one full-time developer dedicated to deployment, along with one part-time developer, and my involvement at about a quarter of my time. So, we have about two people working on deployment. As for maintenance, we're not entirely sure yet. Given our direct OSGi integration choice instead of Docker and REST, maintenance may be more challenging. However, we'll have a clearer picture once deployment is complete.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"AuraPortal is very user-friendly and flexible."
"AuraQuantic's most valuable features are the zero code, user-friendly mode, and integration."
"It's a low-code application."
"AuraPortal has the best price for its process."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the process engine. It allows us to define BPM-based workflows, deploy them into our process engine, and interact with them within our product."
 

Cons

"One thing that could be improved would be for it to be deployed in a shorter time."
"AuraQuantic's price could be improved."
"We'd like it more animated. It would be useful if we could integrate GIFs, for example."
"More documentation and the ability to extract different reports about different relations in the objects I use will help."
"In my opinion, areas of improvement for Flowable include the management and creation of forms within the open-source components and the documentation and examples provided. While the cloud-based Flowable implementation with no-code features is attractive, we prefer more control over integration, especially since we deploy our product onto AWS. We also want to avoid additional licensing fees for Flowable runtime user components on top of our software development and implementation charges."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price could be better. It's quite expensive."
"Since the tool is open-source, we don't have to pay anything for it. It's free to download and use, which is great for us. If Flowable hadn't been available as open source and required a license fee for us to integrate it into our product, we might not have chosen it."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Process Automation solutions are best for your needs.
865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
14%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
28%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Insurance Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Flowable?
The tool's most valuable feature is the process engine. It allows us to define BPM-based workflows, deploy them into our process engine, and interact with them within our product.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Flowable?
Since the tool is open-source, we don't have to pay anything for it. It's free to download and use, which is great for us. If Flowable hadn't been available as open source and required a license fe...
What needs improvement with Flowable?
In my opinion, areas of improvement for Flowable include the management and creation of forms within the open-source components and the documentation and examples provided. While the cloud-based Fl...
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Nissan, RSA Chile, New Millennia Group Plc (UK), TOYOTA, ArcelorMittal Brasil, KPN, Farmacia Luis Corbi, Farmacia del Paseo, Frutas Bean, IncAE Business School, BDO Argentina, Refinery of the Pacific, Balfego Grup, Fundacion Seneca, Technological Institute Maranosa, Coprusa Group, Constructec, University of Deusto, Tenco Shopping Centers, Spanish Railways Foundation, Arbora & Ausonia.
1. Adobe 2. BMW 3. Cisco 4. Dell 5. Ericsson 6. Ford 7. General Electric 8. Honda 9. IBM 10. Johnson & Johnson 11. Kia Motors 12. LG Electronics 13. Microsoft 14. Nike 15. Oracle 16. PepsiCo 17. Qualcomm 18. Red Bull 19. Samsung 20. Toyota 21. Uber 22. Visa 23. Walmart 24. Xerox 25. Yahoo 26. Zara 27. Accenture 28. Bank of America 29. Citigroup 30. Deutsche Bank 31. ExxonMobil 32. Facebook
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, BMC, Temporal Technologies and others in Process Automation. Updated: July 2025.
865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.