We performed a comparison between Camunda and webMethods Integration Server 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 architecture is good because it's a headless workflow. I can create my own frontend, and it's fully API-based."
"For an internal project, this is a solution that you can install and have up and running quite quickly."
"The most valuable feature is the scheduling."
"Camunda Platform is better than IBM BPM, and Azure. It is more elaborate."
"One valuable feature of the solution is its flexibility."
"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 solution is easily compatible with HTML forms and HTML language programming and that is the most significant part."
"I think that the positives of Camunda Platform are that our customers can start with the free version. I think it is the most important."
"A product with good API and EDI components."
"The MFT component of webMethods, for example, is easy to set up and convenient to use. It handles files very efficiently and it is easy to automate tasks with complex schedules. Monitoring is centralized to MWS which can be used to monitor other products as well (Trading Networks, BPM, MFT, etc.)"
"What I found most valuable in webMethods Integration Server is that it's a strong ESB. It also has strong API modules and portals."
"When it comes to the user interface, I'm already really used to it. I cannot say anything against it. For me, it's easy to use."
"It is a very stable product."
"The ease of mapping... is the single largest feature. It gives us the ability to craft anything. A lot of single-purpose technologies, like Mirth, are good for healthcare messages, but we use webMethods not only for healthcare messages but for other business-related purposes, like integrations to Salesforce or integrations to Office 365. It's multi-purpose nature is very strong."
"They are the building blocks of EAI in SAG products, and they offer a very good platform."
"The messaging part is the most valuable feature."
"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."
"It has a Postgres database at the backend, and it is very difficult to scale if you increase the number of processes running. We did hit some barriers. We were able to overcome them, but it was a problem. Camunda has another product called Camunda Cloud, which supposedly doesn't have the same scalability problems, but we are not using Camunda Cloud because the set of features is smaller than Camunda On-Premises. So, its scalability can be improved. Because it has a single database, it is more difficult to scale if you have a huge success."
"The GUI needs to be improved, with more configuration options."
"I would like to see the forms engine available in the open-source version of this solution."
"The primary issue regarding the Camuto platform is its high cost of training. This is why I haven't discussed it extensively, as compared to other products that are more affordable in terms of developer training."
"I'm from the .NET world and I would like to use it, rather than Java."
"We have faced problems with the performance."
"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."
"When migration happens from the one release to an upgraded release from Software AG, many of the existing services are deprecated and developers have to put in effort testing and redeveloping some of the services. It would be better that upgrade releases took care to support the lower-level versions of webMethods."
"We need more dashboards and reporting engines that can provide detailed information for management. In short, we need better analytics."
"One area that needs improvement is the version upgrade process. Many customers I've worked with encounter challenges when transitioning from their current version, such as x or 9, to a newer version. The process is not smooth, and they must shift their entire website."
"On the monitoring side of things, the UI for monitoring could be improved. It's a bit cumbersome to work with."
"In terms of scale, I would give it a four out of 10."
"Business monitoring (BAM) needs improvement because the analytics and prediction module very often has performance problems."
"Support is expensive."
"The patching of infrastructure is not very smooth and improved authentication should be added in the next feature."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
Camunda is ranked 2nd in Business Process Design with 68 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. Camunda is rated 8.2, while webMethods Integration Server 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 webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". Camunda is most compared with Apache Airflow, Bizagi, Pega BPM, IBM BPM and Appian, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods.io Integration, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks and IBM BPM. See our Camunda vs. webMethods Integration Server report.
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.