We performed a comparison between ProcessMaker and TIBCO ActiveMatrix BPM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Management (BPM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Its performance, stability, and security are fine."
"What I like most is the seamlessness of the workflow capabilities."
"For specific situations this can be a good solution and a simplified interface to work with."
"The capacity for distributing the jobs in a workflow is an important feature."
"The product's initial setup phase is straightforward."
"It is the best product because of its stability. ActiveMatrix 5.x is highly stable in production, and the downtime is very low. I have worked on a lot of service projects, and the engine is very stable, robust, and scalable. The development and change requests can be pushed quickly, and the mapper activity and SSLT kind of features are also good. It is easy to do changes, testing, and deployment. Its deployment is very easy, and we can automate a lot of scripts for our on-premises solution. I work for an investment bank, and we have automated a lot of processes for our customers. Previously, we used to develop scripts and tools. With version 6.x, everything is moved to Maven and other things. Environment handling is done mostly through DevOps tools. As compared to Mulesoft, the deployment and configuration are very easy in TIBCO."
"The scheduling and the calendar are very useful."
"Its interface should be a bit more user-friendly."
"This solution only supports basic text, but we would like to be able to insert components such as rich text, graphs, charts, pictures, and other objects."
"The maintenance of the package could be improved."
"Technical support needs to be streamlined."
"The scalability of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"ActiveMatrix is in the middle field. MuleDB is more on the engineering side with Java and other things. SnapLogic is there are on the higher side with very low coding. TIBCO stays in the middle like IBM or Oracle. TIBCO can move towards IBM's way of doing. IBM has a big market and many varieties of products and good integration, which TIBCO doesn't have. It can have better integration. TIBCO's transition to the cloud is a little slow. As compared to Dell, Boomi, and Mulesoft. TIBCO took the steps a little later. TIBCO's ID was far better and easier to work with previously. TIBCO's 5.x ID was very good, and the development environment and the transition were easy. Version 6.5 onwards, it is a stable product, but it would be good if they can do something similar to version 5.4 with version 6. They should concentrate on this API market. It will give them the strength and the ability to grab the market back."
"The product is missing some means of addressing more complex BPM constructs and should interface with more platforms easily."
Earn 20 points
ProcessMaker is ranked 37th in Business Process Management (BPM) while TIBCO ActiveMatrix BPM is ranked 31st in Business Process Management (BPM) with 6 reviews. ProcessMaker is rated 7.6, while TIBCO ActiveMatrix BPM is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of ProcessMaker writes "Easy to learn, automates our manual processes to make things easier, and saves us time and money". On the other hand, the top reviewer of TIBCO ActiveMatrix BPM writes "A tool backed by stellar support that has helped me plan workflows easily". ProcessMaker is most compared with Camunda, Apache Airflow, Bonita, Appian and Nintex Process Platform, whereas TIBCO ActiveMatrix BPM is most compared with Camunda, TIBCO iProcess Suite, Pega BPM, Appian and IBM BPM. See our ProcessMaker vs. TIBCO ActiveMatrix BPM report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors.
We monitor all Business Process Management (BPM) 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.
