We performed a comparison between Apache Airflow and SAP Signavio Process Manager 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."The initial setup was straightforward and it does not take long to complete."
"The solution's UI allows me to collect all the information and see the code lines."
"The product integrates well with other pipelines and solutions."
"We're running it on a virtual server, which we can easily upgrade if needed."
"The solution is flexible for all programming languages for all frameworks."
"Since the solution is programmatic, it allows users to define pipelines in code rather than drag and drop."
"Apache Airflow is useful for workflow automation, making it capable of automating pipelines, data pipelines, and data warehouse processes."
"The most valuable feature of Apache Airflow is creating and scheduling jobs. Additionally, the reattempt at failed jobs is useful."
"The collaboration hub, which helps us in terms of being able to communicate with our customers, brings everybody into the tool and close to the process, allowing them to comment and to implement their own processes."
"The most valuable feature is probably the nature of it."
"All in all, Signavio usability is excellent. Anyone can learn to use the tool quickly. This increases acceptance as employees are not facing a high learning curve. With the offered usability it is easy to model processes also live in workshops."
"We can use workflow manager to create forms."
"I use SAP Signavio Process Manager to model processes to the former operating model."
"It is possible to do the whole drafting process at the same time in Sagnavio so you don't have a double effort of writing it once, arranging it and entering it again."
"As a business transformation suite, Signavio offers a number of integrated helpful tools. The Process Modeler helps with the conceptual work, but is directly integrated with the components of the Workflow Accelerator (Automation) and the Process Intelligence (Mining). This makes Signavio an indispensable service package."
"The most valuable feature for me is usability."
"The problem with Apache Airflow is that it is an open-source tool. You have to build it into a Kubernetes container, which is not easy to maintain, and I find it to be very clunky."
"There is an area for improvement in onboarding new people. They should make it simple for newcomers. Else, we have to put a senior engineer to operate it."
"Programmatically, it's very good, and it doesn't have any competitors, but you cannot develop anything in Airflow UI. You need to develop everything within the program. In the market, other tools have come up recently as competitors to Airflow, and they also give graphical programming options, whereas Airflow doesn't provide that feature currently. All the DAGs you want to build need to be coded in Python."
"The graphical user interface can be improved."
"The platform's stability needs improvement, particularly regarding occasional interruptions due to networking issues."
"We cannot run real-time jobs in the solution."
"I want to see Apache Airflow have more integrations with more production-based databases since it is an area where the product lacks currently."
"The dashboards could be enhanced."
"There is room for improvement in the reporting function. At the moment, for example, while it is possible to report on how many users you had in the last month, you can't use it to tell you how many users you had from the first week to the second week. This is really a drawback because when you have an activity to promote Signavio or BPI, it would be good to be able to measure how many people you had in the system."
"I find it difficult to figure out how I can better align this solution with my KPIs."
"I think the interface itself can improve a bit. I think the interface is still stuck about a decade in the past, if I may be so brutal about it. Some of the buttons are really small, so you can't even see them. I think it needs upgrading to the 21st century with apps and the way we use mobile phones."
"The user administration, the user-group administration, and the license models need improvement."
"The price can be made cheaper."
"There are some small graphical bugs, but they are addressed immediately by Signavio to their product development team."
"SAP Signavio Process Manager needs better automatic rendering of data."
"I think the biggest selling point that Signavio talks about is its collaborative aspect. However, there's still a lot more improvement in terms of what they can do, how they receive comments, address comments, whether they actually provide feedback, etc. There is still a little bit more improvement to be made on those areas."
Apache Airflow is ranked 2nd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 31 reviews while SAP Signavio Process Manager is ranked 8th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews. Apache Airflow is rated 8.0, while SAP Signavio Process Manager 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 SAP Signavio Process Manager writes "Has many functionalities and is used to model processes to the former operating model". Apache Airflow is most compared with Camunda, Informatica Cloud API and App Integration, IBM BPM, IBM Business Automation Workflow and AWS Step Functions, whereas SAP Signavio Process Manager is most compared with Celonis, ARIS BPA, Camunda, Visio and ADONIS. See our Apache Airflow vs. SAP Signavio Process Manager 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.
