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

BizTalk Server 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

BizTalk Server
Ranking in Process Automation
14th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (8th)
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 July 2025, in the Process Automation category, the mindshare of BizTalk Server is 0.8%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Flowable is 6.5%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Process Automation
 

Featured Reviews

Vignesh Kumar Sekar - PeerSpot reviewer
Enables message routing and provides a secure way to communicate between two systems
The AS2 communication protocol is one of the most advanced processes. It enables a handshake with the source and target systems using certificates. It is the most secure way of communicating between two systems. It is an advantage. We can do a lot of message routing. If we want to handle large data, we can put the data into different patterns to process it. We can do it through sequential convoy or parallel convoy orchestration. BizTalk comes with SQL Server. We can load temporary data in the database and use the batch process from BizTalk. It is an added advantage. Creating agreements is a manual job, but it's quite easy in BizTalk. Even a fresh college graduate can configure AS2 certificates and partner profiles and communicate with other systems. It is easy.
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

"BIzTalk's integration with Visual Studio is the most valuable feature of this product."
"The most valuable feature of BizTalk Server is that it will turn XML into flexible transactions."
"We can handle a large number of messages without any issues, ensuring that everything runs smoothly."
"The AS2 communication protocol is one of the most advanced processes."
"Essentially, you can do whatever you like with these systems, and you do not have to take care about the scaling because if one server is overloaded, it just forwards the message to the next server, even if it were designated to a specific server. It weeds out the messages according to the load. If you want to scale it, you just add new servers."
"BizTalk Server offers workflow functionality that I find very effective for process automation."
"I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its integration with the banks. Its messaging and routing capabilities are good."
"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

"The product's deployment can be quicker"
"The deployment could be simplified."
"It's a complex product because you have many degrees of freedom to connect different parts together. Whether it's sensible or not, is up to you, but the machine does allow it. But because of the vast degrees of freedom, it's complex."
"BizTalk Server is an outdated legacy system that does not support messaging."
"BizTalk Server needs improvements, especially because we use it for EDI messaging, and it would be very useful to have enhanced tracking capabilities for message tracking and archiving of messages."
"The product could be improved in monitoring, managing, and support functionalities."
"BizTalk is in the past, Microsoft is not going to evolve it any further or add any new features."
"BizTalk lacks native cloud support. BizTalk doesn't offer in-built support for cloud. We need to use third-party adapters to connect it to cloud services."
"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 solution is expensive."
"Based on the knowledge, it is relatively cheaper than Azure Identity Services and cloud services in general."
"BizTalk Server is cheap. I would rate its pricing a two out of five."
"BizTalk Server is not freeware. There's a significant licensing cost involved. Be sure you will actually utilize its features fully."
"It was not cheap, but it was affordable."
"The cost will depend on the client's requirements."
"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.
860,632 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
11%
Healthcare Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
29%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Retailer
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about BizTalk Server?
The tool's most valuable feature is its integration with the banks. Its messaging and routing capabilities are good.
What needs improvement with BizTalk Server?
BizTalk Server needs improvements, especially because we use it for EDI messaging, and it would be very useful to have enhanced tracking capabilities for message tracking and archiving of messages....
What advice do you have for others considering BizTalk Server?
BizTalk Server has adapted to the changing needs of business over time with steady development, but there are new requirements, for example, on APIs, application programming interfaces. That functi...
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

Centrebet, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, QualCare, Wªrth Handelsges.m.b.H, DTEK, Allscripts, United BioSource, Hogg Robinson
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: June 2025.
860,632 professionals have used our research since 2012.