We performed a comparison between Camunda and No Magic MagicDraw 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."The most valuable feature of Camunda Platform is its Microservices architecture, which is easily integrable with APIs."
"I like everything about the entire BPM that comes with the BPM suite."
"It is quite easy to build a simple process without any knowledge of programming."
"We have been able to save costs using this solution compared to the product we used before."
"The graphical interface is very beneficial."
"The architecture is good because it's a headless workflow. I can create my own frontend, and it's fully API-based."
"Camunda Platform is better than IBM BPM, and Azure. It is more elaborate."
"The flexibility characteristic in a BPMS, through BPMN and DMN, is undoubtedly the most interesting feature for our business."
"Offers good standards compliance and is user-friendly."
"The most valuable feature of No Magic MagicDraw is the simulation capabilities and interface."
"When you look at it, No Magic is an all-encompassing tool. You can use it for business architecture design. You can use it for deploying an ERP system across your enterprise. However, it was initially designed and developed for model-based systems engineering. That's the systems engineering required to either produce an IP system or product. It takes away the mounds of paper and puts it into a model. It enables you to generate significant savings by modeling that new product or that system before you ever start developing a prototype."
"The beauty of MagicDraw is that it has a simulation part, so you can simulate your model to validate it. The simulation allows you to bring in code off of an external code that you can write to set up the simulation and execute the code."
"There is a lot of documentation available on the Internet to understand its functionality."
"It is very user-friendly, and the customer service is really good."
"The MBFC capability of MagicDraw is higher than the other competitors."
"It is pretty easy to use. It is pretty versatile."
"The product must provide more videos and training materials."
"When addressing a complex and extensive process, the domain it belongs to, be it banking, healthcare, or HR, requires widespread access."
"Initial setup can be quite complex."
"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."
"The GUI needs to be improved, with more configuration options."
"The Camunda Modeler installation poses a challenge, requiring local installation, which doesn't help collaboration like other online tools, for instance."
"There should be a multi-tenant solution for the platform where it supports multiple organizations on one platform instead of having to spin up multiple clusters for each organization. There should be an easy way to integrate different departments into one platform without having to operate multiple platforms. The operations should be easier with the enterprise solution. It should not create more overhead for the operations people."
"The initial set up could be simplified, it's complex."
"I would like to see the ability to deploy live business process models and capture real-time data (without the need for another product tool) so you don't have to be dependent on other products for this functionality."
"The cost of upgrading the product should be lower."
"It's very focused on specific modern languages and it doesn't do necessarily general systems software engineering with diagrams. They should expand the diagram types for the languages."
"They don't really support code engineering, and that's why we have to move to Enterprise Architect. MagicDraw is stuck at C++03 standards, whereas most C++ programs today want to use the latest definition of the C++ standards. We were at C++11, and we wanted to do code engineering with C++11 or 17, but they didn't support it. That pushed us into a different tool, which is Sparx Enterprise Architect."
"The technical support is not very good."
"There are some technical features that you have to study and do research on to be able to understand."
"For the next releases, I would like to have them import requirements from other sources. They could make it very easy to do that because there are a lot requirements management tools like DOORS, D-O-O-R-S, Dynamic Object Oriented Management. A lot of folks use DOORS to create a requirement. For those requirements you allocate them to a component in the architecture and a verification method for that requirement. It would be good if we could import those into MagicDraw as components so you don't have to manually do these things."
"There could be a trial version for students."
Camunda is ranked 2nd in Business Process Design with 68 reviews while No Magic MagicDraw is ranked 10th in Business Process Design with 17 reviews. Camunda is rated 8.2, while No Magic MagicDraw is rated 8.2. 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 No Magic MagicDraw writes "Pretty easy to use and versatile, but doesn't support code engineering and can be overly complicated at times". Camunda is most compared with Apache Airflow, Bizagi, Pega BPM, IBM BPM and Appian, whereas No Magic MagicDraw is most compared with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, Visio, Visual Paradigm, Lucidchart and Bizagi. See our Camunda vs. No Magic MagicDraw 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.