Bizagi vs ProcessMaker comparison

"The product enables the users to automate the processes and provides a good user experience."

"Great mapping feature that's easy to use."

"The product has a comfortable GUI and a good environment for users."

"It has an easy to use interface which final users accepted with much more enthusiasm than our ERP (SAP)."

"With the appropriate governance framework, properly trained business analysts can be empowered to design and build business solutions themselves."

"Bizagi has the capability to import-export with various modelling notations."

"Your team can work on it having basic training about databases and BPM modeling."

"I like the ease of use and the fact that you can download and use their free version, which is unlimited. However, while it's unlimited use, some features aren't available."

"Its performance, stability, and security are fine."

"What I like most is the seamlessness of the workflow capabilities."

"Yes, sometimes when we execute EXPRESSIONS Xpath, we don't always get the same result."

"Bizagi's UI should include shorter steps for documenting controls, documenting properties, changing some attributes in the object, and adding additional text."

"I think that they could improve their update process. Some of the process mining techniques could be added to Bizagi. I think that they can improve their simulation abilities to include more elements of the BPMN."

"A more complex management of documents, such as advanced searches, indexing etc, without needing to integrate with ECM's (Enterprise Content Management Systems)"

"The open source version lacks the option to publish."

"It is difficult to drive ROI on types of processes involving complex business rules."

"Sending emails for a role, import from AD and the creation of areas per profiles are features that need improvement."

"Its performance needs to be improved. The main thing is that it is limited, especially in terms of the response times. When the processes become a bit large, it is very awkward to work with the Bizagi modeler. When you have already modeled but start to rearrange, it is quite a bit of an effort to change the stuff. When you rearrange lanes or have new structures, it goes rather squiggly up and down and so on, which could be improved. The visual outputs of the DIREPs of the process models are pixelated and have a bad image quality. It is a PNG or JPEG, and you cannot export it as a PDF. When you have rather large processes, you should be able to arrange them hierarchically. Currently, it is not supported. If you use sub-processes and inflate a process, suddenly the arrangement is totally different, and although you know the process, you have to look where is it now. You need a good understanding of the levels of your processes before you start in Bizagi. It can have automatic support for optimal presentation. In BPM, you should have it from the top left to the bottom right. However, in most cases, people don't know how they should arrange it. Therefore, it would be nice to have a suggestion system for different arrangements to be able to better present the process."

"Its interface should be a bit more user-friendly."

"This solution only supports basic text, but we would like to be able to insert components such as rich text, graphs, charts, pictures, and other objects."

"The Bizagi modeler can be downloaded free of charge."

"It has a very high price. Many clients complain about the price for maintaining the application on Bizagi."

"It is not expensive."

"It is expensive."

"The modeling part of the software is free. Most of the time, it is used for this purpose."

"I was using the free version."

"I'm trying the free unlimited version with unlimited use. But you have to pay to add some features."

"From what I know of the market, I think Bizagi is a cheap solution for process engineering. Out of the solutions I've tried, from cheapest to most expensive, would be Vizor, Bizagi, Signavio, and then Siemens. I used a version of Bizagi that my university provided for free, so I have never paid for a license."

"We have a yearly license."