We performed a comparison between Camunda and webMethods Integration Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Design solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The flexibility characteristic in a BPMS, through BPMN and DMN, is undoubtedly the most interesting feature for our business."
"It is very user-friendly compared to IBM BPM. It's much simpler – it's more streamlined. That means even non-technical departments can use it."
"I like everything about the entire BPM that comes with the BPM suite."
"I love that Camunda is a very developer-friendly platform, and my customers have evaluated the pricing as reasonable."
"Camunda Platform has a very good interface for workflow and business process design."
"I think that the positives of Camunda Platform are that our customers can start with the free version. I think it is the most important."
"It's user friendly, much better than most tools I have seen."
"It is quite easy to build a simple process without any knowledge of programming."
"It is a very stable product."
"I like the stability of the webMethods Integration Server."
"What I found most valuable in webMethods Integration Server is that it's a strong ESB. It also has strong API modules and portals."
"Currently, we're using this solution for the integration server which helps us to integrate with the mainframe."
"webMethods Integration Server is an easy-to-use solution and does not require a lot of coding."
"Given that you have one integration API in place, it takes very minimal effort to scale it to any other application that might want to use the same. Its flow-based development environment is a breeze and makes it really easy to re-use most of the existing components and build up a new API."
"It frankly fills the gap between IT and business by having approval and policy enforcement on each state and cycle of the asset from the moment it gets created until it is retired."
"The messaging part is the most valuable feature."
"I would like to see the forms engine available in the open-source version of this solution."
"When you search for Camunda BPM resources or books on how to utilize Camunda BPM, it is lacking. When it comes to Alfresco, there are thousands of resources that can help you to utilize within AWS and its Group Services. I would like to see the usage of Camunda BPM on Amazon Web Services be improved."
"In terms of features, it meets my needs, but I would like Camunda to have an office in Brazil and provide training in Portuguese. They should provide regional support and training courses in Portuguese."
"Documentation can be improved."
"I would also like a very easy to use form builder."
"There should be a multi-tenant solution for the platform where it supports multiple organizations on one platform instead of having to spin up multiple clusters for each organization. There should be an easy way to integrate different departments into one platform without having to operate multiple platforms. The operations should be easier with the enterprise solution. It should not create more overhead for the operations people."
"The user interface needs improvement. It should be more tailored to the end-user and offer a better user experience design over the user interface itself."
"I would like to see better pricing."
"In terms of improvement, it would be better if it adapted quicker to open standards. It took a while for API specification before the last version was available. The spec of version two was rather quick."
"Support is expensive."
"The solution has big instances when deployed under microservices or in a containerized platform. They need to improve that so that it is competitive with other integration solutions, like Redis and Kafka. Deployments under microservices with those solutions are much more lightweight, in the size of the runtime itself, compared with Software AG."
"It would be nice if they had a change management system offering. We built our own deployer application because the one built into webMethods couldn't enforce change management rules. Integration into a change management system, along with the version control system, would be a good offering; it's something that they're lacking."
"On the monitoring side of things, the UI for monitoring could be improved. It's a bit cumbersome to work with."
"The interface needs some work. It is not very user-friendly."
"I'd like to see the admin portal for managing the integration server go up a level, to have more capabilities and to be given a more modern web interface."
"There should be better logging, or a better dashboard, to allow you to see see the logs of the services."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
Camunda is ranked 2nd in Business Process Design with 68 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. Camunda is rated 8.2, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Camunda writes "Open-source, easy to define new processes, and easy to transition to new business process definitions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". Camunda is most compared with Apache Airflow, Bizagi, Pega BPM, IBM BPM and Appian, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods.io Integration, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks and IBM BPM. See our Camunda vs. webMethods Integration Server report.
We monitor all Business Process Design 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.
