We performed a comparison between Apache Airflow and Camunda Platform based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Camunda Platform has an edge over Apache Airflow in this comparison. It is easier to deploy and is scalable and robust. However, Apache Airflow users are overall more satisfied with the pricing of the product.
"The solution's UI allows me to collect all the information and see the code lines."
"Apache Airflow is in Python language, making it easy to use and learn."
"Development on Apache Airflow is really fast, and it's easy to use with the newer updates. Everything is in Python, so it's not hard to understand. They also have a graphical view, so if you are not a programmer and you are just an administrator, you can easily track everything and see if everything is working or not."
"Since Apache works very well on Python, we can manage everything and create pipelines there."
"Its user-friendly interface makes it straightforward to operate, offering a plethora of features for data preparation, buffering, and format conversion."
"It's stable."
"I like the UI rework, it's much easier."
"Since the solution is programmatic, it allows users to define pipelines in code rather than drag and drop."
"Provides an easy way to integrate with the architectural environment."
"The architecture is good because it's a headless workflow. I can create my own frontend, and it's fully API-based."
"The modeler is useful for creating the flow. The way to access the data through their REST API is also valuable. This is what we're using right now."
"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."
"Its flexibility stands out as the most valuable feature."
"Camunda Platform is better than IBM BPM, and Azure. It is more elaborate."
"It is quite easy to build a simple process without any knowledge of programming."
"The graphical interface is very beneficial."
"Apache Airflow could be improved by integrating some versioning principles."
"I would like to see it more friendly for other use cases."
"The automation capabilities could be improved; a visual workflow designer and a graphical tool to reduce coding would be very helpful. But for now, it's sufficient for our simple workflows."
"We're currently using version 1.10, but I understand that there's a lot of improvements in version 2. In the earlier version that we're using, we sometimes have problems with maintenance complexity. Actually using Airflow is okay, but maintaining it has been difficult."
"We have faced scenarios where Apache Airflow becomes non-responsive, leading to job failures. To resolve such situations, we had to manually reboot Apache Airflow since it doesn't provide an option to restart within the application. This necessitated modifying some configurations to initiate a restart of all Apache Airflow components. Although Apache Airflow is generally dependable, it may occasionally encounter glitches that can disrupt production flows and batches."
"We cannot run real-time jobs in the solution."
"Technical support is an area that needs improvement."
"Apache Airflow should have better integration with cloud platforms."
"The initial set up could be simplified, it's complex."
"I think it would be important to internationalize the Cockpit and the Admin as well as with the Tasklist."
"I would like to have a feature for audit logging, audit logs and audit log management. And some history of use for the audit logs."
"The user interface needs improvement. It should be more tailored to the end-user and offer a better user experience design over the user interface itself."
"The business model could be easier to understand."
"When addressing a complex and extensive process, the domain it belongs to, be it banking, healthcare, or HR, requires widespread access."
"Lacking in forms visualization."
"The Camunda Modeler installation poses a challenge, requiring local installation, which doesn't help collaboration like other online tools, for instance."
Apache Airflow is ranked 2nd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 31 reviews while Camunda is ranked 1st in Business Process Management (BPM) with 69 reviews. Apache Airflow is rated 8.0, while Camunda is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Apache Airflow writes "Enable seamless integration with various connectivity and integrated services, including BigQuery and Python operators ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Camunda writes "Open-source, easy to define new processes, and easy to transition to new business process definitions". Apache Airflow is most compared with Informatica Cloud API and App Integration, IBM BPM, IBM Business Automation Workflow, AWS Step Functions and Bizagi, whereas Camunda is most compared with Bizagi, Pega BPM, IBM BPM, Appian and Bonita. See our Apache Airflow vs. Camunda 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.
