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

CA Process Automation vs IBM WebSphere BPMS comparison

Broadcom and IBM are both solutions in the Process Automation category. Broadcom is ranked #36, while IBM is ranked #33 with an average rating of 7.0. Broadcom holds a 0.3% mindshare in PA, compared to IBM’s 0.2% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Broadcom users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 83% of IBM users who would recommend it.
CA Process Automation
Read 12 CA Process Automation reviews
  • 290 Views
  • 76 Comparison Views
100% willing to recommend
IBM WebSphere BPMS
Read 6 IBM WebSphere BPMS reviews
  • 172 Views
  • 39 Comparison Views
83% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 2024

IBM WebSphere BPMS and CA Process Automation compete in the business process management sector. The robust functionality of IBM WebSphere BPMS appeals to users, while CA Process Automation is favored for its streamlined processes and cost effectiveness.

Features: IBM WebSphere BPMS integrates well with various systems and excels in process modeling, ensuring comprehensive functionality. Its wide-ranging features include scalability and fault-tolerance, vital for complex environments. In contrast, CA Process Automation offers customization, flexibility, and a user-friendly interface, emphasizing adaptability. The platform supports seamless workflow automation with diverse integration options, enhancing user interaction.

Room for Improvement: IBM WebSphere BPMS could improve by simplifying its user interface and reducing its complexity for non-technical users. Licensing costs could be a barrier for smaller organizations. Better initial setup guidance might be beneficial. CA Process Automation might improve its robustness for larger scale deployments. Increased transparency on workflow bottlenecks and failure points could enhance its operations. Additional native integration support could further amplify its versatility.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: IBM WebSphere BPMS offers strong customer service with a well-supported deployment model, suitable for complex IT infrastructures. CA Process Automation features an easy deployment process known for quick integration, appealing to users seeking simplicity and rapid outcomes.

Pricing and ROI: IBM WebSphere BPMS incurs higher initial setup costs, which may extend ROI timelines but provides value through its extensive features over time. CA Process Automation offers a more cost-effective initial investment with a faster ROI due to its efficient deployment and immediate benefits in process optimization.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed CA Process Automation vs. IBM WebSphere BPMS Report (Updated: June 2025).
Buyer's Guide
CA Process Automation vs. IBM WebSphere BPMS
June 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 859,129 peers since 2012

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

CA Process Automation
Ranking in Process Automation
36th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
IBM WebSphere BPMS
Ranking in Process Automation
33rd
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Process Automation category, the mindshare of CA Process Automation is 0.3%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM WebSphere BPMS is 0.2%, down from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Process Automation
 

Featured Reviews

SJ
Added value to the delivery of services and the customer experience
We design end-to-end automation solutions for repetitive tasks performed by IT support teams This tool is used in my organization for automating IT infrastructure related incidents or service requests.  Built-in operators available for most integrations. Easy to manage. Attended/unattended…
Read full review
ST
Systematic role management and flexible integration improve efficiency, but low-code capabilities and setup complexity need addressing
The most valuable feature of IBM WebSphere BPMS ( /products/ibm-websphere-bpms-reviews ) is the systematic framework it provides for building different systems. The critical component is the authorization within the workflow assignment, which is an attractive aspect of this tool. It has helped us in systematic role management within the workflow. Additionally, it offers flexible integration capabilities facilitating front-end and back-end separation practices, allowing for technologies like Angular and Spring Boot ( /products/spring-boot-reviews ).
Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"This tool is used in my organization for automating IT infrastructure related incidents or service requests."
"It is easy to debug and troubleshoot."
"We like the feature in which we can trace back instances."
"The UI capabilities of the solution are great. The speed of delivery is good."
"This product is flexible in its ability to integrate processes and it can be extended and integrated with other software."
"IBM WebSphere BPMS provides significant return on investments, especially in the BAW component."
"The most valuable feature of IBM WebSphere BPMS is the systematic framework it provides for building different systems."
 

Cons

"OCR capability should be added as a feature."
"It needs auto-triggering of workflows based on machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI)."
"Make some of the features more open source that way developers can have more flexibility."
"Somehow the product group within CA left the product dry from some regular expression functionality."
"Sometimes there are tasks that failed without any reason."
"There is a need for more capabilities in low-code and no-code development to increase efficiency and make implementation simpler."
"The user interface could be improved, and although integration opportunities are good, they could be improved further."
"The solution lacks acceptable stability."
"Looking forward, IBM WebSphere BPMS could add more adapters to integrate with SAP or Salesforce integrator in upcoming releases."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There are a lot of automation savings from any process which is repeatable."
"It has provided ROI by auto resolving incidents or requests in the ITSM queue, improved MTTR and SLA adherence, and added value to the delivery of services and the customer experience."
Information not available
report
See which vendors are best for you
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Process Automation solutions are best for your needs.
See recommendations
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with IBM WebSphere BPMS?
There is a need for more capabilities in low-code and no-code development to increase efficiency and make implementation simpler. The tool currently involves a complex setup requirement, and having...
See all answers
What is your primary use case for IBM WebSphere BPMS?
We use IBM WebSphere BPMS ( /products/ibm-websphere-bpms-reviews ) internally in the bank for process automation and management. Our IT department self-builds different systems to serve various use...
See all answers
What advice do you have for others considering IBM WebSphere BPMS?
I recommend IBM WebSphere BPMS for large enterprises concerned with total system management. It is not ideal for SMB due to its complexity and the need for significant IT resources. I rate it seven...
See all answers
 

Comparisons

Microsoft System Center Orchestrator vs CA Process Automation Logo
Microsoft System Center Orchestrator vs CA Process Automation
Compared 100% of the time
More CA Process Automation Competitors
No data available
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
CA Process Automation
June 2025
CA Process Automation reportDownload CA Process Automation product report
Buyer's Guide
IBM WebSphere BPMS
June 2025
IBM WebSphere BPMS reportDownload IBM WebSphere BPMS product report
 

Also Known As

CA IT Process Automation Manager
WebSphere BPMS
 

Overview

CA Process Automation is designed to speed the delivery of IT services while helping to remove manual errors. By defining, automating and orchestrating processes across organizational silos that use disparate systems, CA Process Automation helps improve productivity while also enforcing standards. With CA Process Automation, you can automate IT processes that span multiple organizations and systems, reduce the time it takes to deliver services and enforce standards and compliance policies across departments. CA Process Automation helps you automate IT processes to reduce operational expenses, increase staff productivity, speed IT service delivery, improve service quality, and enforce compliance policies.
Broadcom
Information not available
IBM
 

Sample Customers

Unum, HCL Technologies, Logicalis
Schahin Group, Korean Credit Card Company, Versicherungskammer Bayern, Biogrid Australia
Buyer's Guide
CA Process Automation vs. IBM WebSphere BPMS
June 2025
Free Report: CA Process Automation vs. IBM WebSphere BPMS
Find out what your peers are saying about CA Process Automation vs. IBM WebSphere BPMS and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our CA Process Automation vs. IBM WebSphere BPMS report.
See our list of best Process Automation vendors.

We monitor all Process Automation 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.