We performed a comparison between IBM BPM and IBM WebSphere BPMS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Pega, Appian and others in Process Automation."We use it for automating certain processes which previously took a lot of time for agents to set up different products for customers. They would have to enter a lot of different systems. This has now mostly been automated."
"It makes the company business processes work more efficiently."
"One of the most notable things is how you can develop use cases with the customers, internal customers, but directly within. The software process model that BPM supports is really exciting in that aspect."
"Some of the features that I like the most are team management and process performance. They are both very useful and very powerful with regard to the workflow."
"The solution is stable."
"Its Analytics is the most valuable feature."
"It excels at analytics. It provides visibility across all activities of a company's processes and performance."
"It provides value and simplifies processes."
"The UI capabilities of the solution are great. The speed of delivery is good."
"We like the feature in which we can trace back instances."
"This product is flexible in its ability to integrate processes and it can be extended and integrated with other software."
"Finding errors and bugs on the system is not easy. We can't seem to use the events or logs to find them, so it makes it difficult to debug the system. They really need to work on their debugging features to make is much, much easier. It would improve the solution considerably and should be something they add in a future release."
"Better integration with other products in the automation suite."
"Initial setup is very complex. Too many steps need to be done at the database and server levels, and complex configurations. From what I see, a lot of these steps can be and should be automated."
"It might not be suitable for entry level clients because it comes with a huge number of modules for processing that at times might not be necessary for upcoming clients."
"The engine itself tends to accumulate a lot of data that needs to be cleaned up, and that's the kind of thing that keeps it from, in some scenarios, scaling as much as it needs to. And then, when you're building solutions, if you're not careful to keep the screens from being associated with too much data, if you're going to just do things the way that a lot of people would just assume that they can do, without having experience of having made those mistakes before, it will accumulate a lot of data, and that will cause it to perform very badly."
"User Interface components could be further refined to enhance and extend customizations dictated by end clients."
"They could provide case studies to investigate and understand the functionality of business processes before development."
"IBM BPM's price could be improved."
"The solution lacks acceptable stability."
"Sometimes there are tasks that failed without any reason."
"The user interface could be improved, and although integration opportunities are good, they could be improved further."
Earn 20 points
IBM BPM is ranked 5th in Process Automation with 105 reviews while IBM WebSphere BPMS is ranked 33rd in Process Automation. IBM BPM is rated 7.8, while IBM WebSphere BPMS is rated 6.6. The top reviewer of IBM BPM writes "Offers good case management and its integration with process design but there's a learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM WebSphere BPMS writes "Standardizes and automates business processes for efficiency ". IBM BPM is most compared with Camunda, Appian, Pega BPM, IBM Business Automation Workflow and Apache Airflow, whereas IBM WebSphere BPMS is most compared with .
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.
