We performed a comparison between Camunda and Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect 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."It has been a stable solution so far since it meets our needs, including data modeling, which we need to do before we embark on analyzing and optimizing the business processes."
"The most valuable feature of Camunda Platform is its Microservices architecture, which is easily integrable with APIs."
"The architecture is good because it's a headless workflow. I can create my own frontend, and it's fully API-based."
"We are documenting all of the processors and VPN. Then we are sharing it with our business users."
"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."
"Being able to use a Java-based solution makes the product flexible."
"It's user friendly, much better than most tools I have seen."
"I love that Camunda is a very developer-friendly platform, and my customers have evaluated the pricing as reasonable."
"For the most part, we find that it is remarkable how inexpensive it is."
"The features I find most valuable is the ability to create a document and then put it into a OneCare artifact."
"The advantages of Enterprise are that it's cheaper and much more practical than MagicDraw."
"I have found the Meta Model tuning feature useful as it provides me with an overview of all my work needs."
"I like Sparx's BPM features and the way it lets you create the diagram."
"Its traversability is most valuable. I can use ArchiMate, and I can create a UML model. ArchiMate is for logical enterprise architecture, UML is for software engineering, and BPMN is for business processes. I can build it to have multiple models, and they are also traversable, which is not something that every tool allows. If there is a huge organization, you can segment it and have separate models for business technology or internal resource management system. You don't need to keep them in one model, and you can decide to segregate them."
"Ability to keep inventory of reusable blocks, and use in different diagrams with views of various templates."
"Provides a single repository for all architecture work."
"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."
"I'm from the .NET world and I would like to use it, rather than Java."
"Camunda could be improved by making it easier to modify a process. You can program it to follow a process, but it is difficult to modify the process when the application is in use. It could also be improved by making it easier to use the visual platform without needing to be informed on that. Sometimes, we programmers haven't used it in the past, and it's a bit difficult to learn it."
"It lacks some preset features and configurations which would make it more plug-and-play for customers."
"While it's very scalable, it would be great if auto-scaling capabilities were added to it... one area that really could help out would be to have dynamic resizing of the cluster. Right now, you have to do capacity planning."
"Especially when you use the open-source version, there are issues with performance."
"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."
"When trying to design rule tables the solutions graphical user interface could improve, it could be more user friendly."
"I struggled with most of the features for this tool, as did the rest of our architecture team."
"The UI could be improved and made a little bit more presentable."
"When the model is large, it is a bit slow to render."
"Weak in regards to data modelling. No logical or physical modelling or migration from conceptual to physical."
"The documentation could be better. Where I work, we speak French and we don't speak English, so we don't have anything in French. It's perfect in English, but we need something in French."
"Sparx can be a bit slow. If you are trying to design software architecture, sometimes we run into issues and need to refresh."
"This solution is quite complex to use. It would be nice if the learning curve wasn't so steep."
"For data modeling, it is not very mature when comparing with other data modeling tools."
More Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect Pricing and Cost Advice →
Camunda is ranked 2nd in Business Process Design with 71 reviews while Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is ranked 4th in Business Process Design with 97 reviews. Camunda is rated 8.2, while Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect 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 Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect writes "Easy to set up and had no issues with stability, but it's not a very friendly tool, and its database modeling and entity-relationship modeling functions need improvement". Camunda is most compared with Apache Airflow, Bizagi, Pega BPM, IBM BPM and Appian, whereas Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect is most compared with Visual Paradigm, Visio, No Magic MagicDraw and Lucidchart. See our Camunda vs. Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect report.
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.
