We performed a comparison between Camunda and QPR ProcessDesigner based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Camunda, Software AG and others in Business Process Design."The architecture is good because it's a headless workflow. I can create my own frontend, and it's fully API-based."
"The UI is very user-friendly compared to other products. The native, vanilla UI is very interesting and intuitive to use. It's user-friendly when it comes to modernizing a business process."
"Camunda's process diagram creation and deployment is very easy."
"The best feature is the automation."
"Provides an easy way to integrate with the architectural environment."
"I can use any other tools to create services and the UI, and then use them together with the Camunda BPMN engine."
"There's this graphic that tells you how many lines or how many tickets are in each step. In that way, you know where you stand. I find this feature very valuable."
"One valuable feature of the solution is its flexibility."
"Processes become clearer, easier to understand, and easier to spot in development areas."
"It makes communication easier due to transparency on processes."
"I think it would be important to internationalize the Cockpit and the Admin as well as with the Tasklist."
"They have a migration plugin that can be used to migrate from one BPM to another BPM. It is in the beta stage since last year. If they can make it available in the market, it would be great. We are going to have a couple of migration projects for migrating from IBM BPM to Camunda, and this plugin would be useful. I have already discussed this with them two weeks ago and asked them to look into this and add it as a feature. We are expecting this plugin to be available in the next version. This is the only requirement we have at present. They keep on coming up with different features, which is helping us a lot. Its latest release that came out last month was awesome."
"Like all BPM tools, they're very bad with proprietary UIs. In general, anyone who uses BPM tools should not expect to use their proprietary UI."
"They could provide more documentation regarding the integration of different programming languages."
"When trying to design rule tables the solutions graphical user interface could improve, it could be more user friendly."
"An improvement would be to support Angular 2 instead of AngularJS, which is quite old."
"It lacks some preset features and configurations which would make it more plug-and-play for customers."
"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."
"There is definitely a need to produce models in XML. There is already something available, but it seems that transferring between the different modelling tools is difficult."
Earn 20 points
Camunda is ranked 2nd in Business Process Design with 69 reviews while QPR ProcessDesigner is ranked 25th in Business Process Design. Camunda is rated 8.2, while QPR ProcessDesigner 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 QPR ProcessDesigner writes "FactView was easy to use and integrate". Camunda is most compared with Apache Airflow, Bizagi, Pega BPM, IBM BPM and Appian, whereas QPR ProcessDesigner is most compared with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect and SAP Signavio Process Manager.
See our list of best Business Process Design vendors.
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.
