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."Easy to use and easy to integrate into the products and applications we provide for our customers."
"Camunda's process diagram creation and deployment is very easy."
"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."
"Camunda's most valuable feature is its ability to integrate with different products."
"We like the idea of working with Cawemo because it enables us to keep on working, remotely or not. It allows us to collaborate between areas. It's easy to model and easy to use"
"The most valuable features are the management of internal processes, the ability to execute from design and the model for internal processes, the ability to make processes visible, and the ability to have information about the current state of each instance."
"I love that Camunda is a very developer-friendly platform, and my customers have evaluated the pricing as reasonable."
"Overall, the solution has been very solid."
"One valuable feature is that it is event-driven, so when new data is available on the source it can be quickly processed and displayed. Integration is definitely another useful feature, and B2B is one area where webMethods has its own unique thing going, whereby we can do monitoring of transactions, monitoring of client onboarding, and so on."
"It's a visual tool, so our transformations can be quickly implemented without a lot of fuss. The fact that we have an easy way to expose REST services is also very interesting. It offers the possibility to connect over GMS to synchronize message brokers."
"All of the components are very independent but are tied together to give the business value."
"The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is the built-in monitoring, auditing, RETS, and SOAP services."
"webMethods Integration Server is an easy-to-use solution and does not require a lot of coding."
"The development is very fast. If you know what you're doing, you can develop something very easily and very fast."
"I would say the core Web-based integrations work the best. They are the most efficient and robust implementations one can do with webMethods."
"The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is its reliability. It has a lot of great documentation from the service providers. Additionally, it is easy to use."
"The support offered by the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"I have faced problems in bringing up the Cockpit in terms of GUI processes. I think that there is room for improvement in those areas."
"I would like to see the forms engine available in the open-source version of this solution."
"The product does not have a dictionary."
"The GUI needs to be improved, with more configuration options."
"When building interfaces, there are limited tools to work with, especially when dealing with different types of tasks, such as user tasks and system tasks."
"We have faced problems with the performance."
"I don't like the UI of the Camunda Platform, I have found the Signavio solution to be much better for me to create the process designs and execute them. Additionally, I have found the tools in the Camunda Platform are not compatible with some of my other tools. They should improve this in the future."
"This solution could be improved by offering subscription based licensing."
"The initial setup of the webMethods Integration Server is not easy but it gets easier once you know it. It is tiresome but not difficult."
"Technical support is an area where they can improve."
"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."
"The certifications and learning resources are not exposed openly enough. For instance, they have a trial version which comes with only a few basic features, and I think that community-wise they need to offer more free or open spaces where developers can feel encouraged to experiment."
"The interface needs some work. It is not very user-friendly."
"I would like to have a dashboard where I can see all of the communication between components and the configuration."
"This product is for larger companies. Compared to TIBCO I think webMethods is better in terms of ease of use and support."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
Camunda is ranked 2nd in Business Process Design with 69 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.
