We performed a comparison between CA Automic Service Orchestration [EOL] and IBM BPM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Pega, Appian and others in Process Automation."Jobs are planned automatically to eliminate the need to plan them manually. It also saves us effort because there is no need to create job objects manually."
"If I have a higher workload with smaller machines, it is easy to increase everything."
"It provides a simple reduction of headcount and also a reduction of run through time."
"The product is stable. This is the reason that we are using Automic, in some cases, because of its stability and features."
"The system integration layer is valuable because this enables an organization to create a single point where all the key organizational master data is held in different IT applications across different functions, that can be accessed and updated."
"IBM BPM should become cloud-native. It should also add a cloud deployment feature."
"I rate the technical support a ten out of ten...The product's installation was easy."
"The solution has helped us automate business processes."
"The initial setup is straightforward and easy. I would give it a nine out of ten."
"Previously, our company's business automation process was slow. IBM BPM's schedule and response functionalities are excellent...There are countless use cases in which IBM BPM proves to be a valuable tool for my clients."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"Technical support is pleasant to work with and always available."
"In the last two years or so, Automic has not invested as much in the product as we would have expected."
"What I am missing today is robotics. If Automic would like to stay as one of the biggest automation engines on the market, they have to find an option with a robotics solution."
"The front end is not customised for a good user experience."
"We have had to use Mule as an alternative integration tool because it is more flexible than IBM BPM."
"We had a weird problem that whenever the database would go down, even for a few seconds, it broke the connection. It would not come back up as it was supposed to. However, working with IBM, we were able to figure out a fix, then it came back up, even after an interruption of the database."
"You must have good experience to work with it. It is not that easy. Its installation is complex, especially in the new version for business automation, and it could be improved. It has a safety application embedded inside it, and you need to do a lot of configuration to install it. I have been working for two days to resolve an issue."
"User Interface components could be further refined to enhance and extend customizations dictated by end clients."
"The analysis reports could be much better."
"They don't have a mechanism to achieve processes, data sources, and data."
"The integration could be improved."
More CA Automic Service Orchestration [EOL] Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
CA Automic Service Orchestration [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Process Automation while IBM BPM is ranked 5th in Process Automation with 105 reviews. CA Automic Service Orchestration [EOL] is rated 10.0, while IBM BPM is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of CA Automic Service Orchestration [EOL] writes "Automation of job object creation increased the quality and quantity of our job requests". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM BPM writes "Offers good case management and its integration with process design but there's a learning curve". CA Automic Service Orchestration [EOL] is most compared with , whereas IBM BPM is most compared with Camunda, Appian, Pega BPM, IBM Business Automation Workflow and Apache Airflow.
See our list of best Process Automation vendors.
We monitor all Process Automation 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.