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."Provides an easy way to integrate with the architectural environment."
"I can use any other tools to create services and the UI, and then use them together with the Camunda BPMN engine."
"Its flexibility stands out as the most valuable feature."
"The integration with almost any language, product, and even human tasks, is valuable. It's very seamless to integrate into existing systems. It doesn't require you to rewrite a lot of your existing system. That's where it really stands out."
"Overall, the solution has been very solid."
", Camunda can be a powerful tool to work with when used in an optimized and well-implemented manner."
"I've found the active community most valuable but it also provides you with a lot of other features."
"The UI is very user-friendly compared to other products. The native, vanilla UI is very interesting and intuitive to use. It's user-friendly when it comes to modernizing a business process."
"webMethods platform is used to build an EAI platform, enabling communication between many internal systems and third-party operators."
"The synchronous and asynchronous messaging system the solution provides is very good."
"One valuable feature is that it is event-driven, so when new data is available on the source it can be quickly processed and displayed. Integration is definitely another useful feature, and B2B is one area where webMethods has its own unique thing going, whereby we can do monitoring of transactions, monitoring of client onboarding, and so on."
"Operationally, I consider the solution to be quite good."
"The most valuable feature of webMethods Integration Server is all the capabilities it provides. We leverage most of the features, that they have offered to us. Our vendor has made some additional features on top of the webMethods Integration Server and we use all the features together."
"The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is the built-in monitoring, auditing, RETS, and SOAP services."
"A product with good API and EDI components."
"The development is very fast. If you know what you're doing, you can develop something very easily and very fast."
"Documentation can be improved."
"As we experienced some difficulties in the beginning, deployment took almost a month."
"In terms of features, it meets my needs, but I would like Camunda to have an office in Brazil and provide training in Portuguese. They should provide regional support and training courses in Portuguese."
"Without a proper frontend, the business cannot effectively use the platform."
"The support offered by the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The initial setup can be complex for business users."
"I would like to see the forms engine available in the open-source version of this solution."
"We have faced problems with the performance."
"webMethods Integration Server needs to add more adapters."
"Documentation needs tuning. There is a lot of dependency with SoftwareAG. Even with the documentation at hand, you can struggle to implement scenarios without SAG’s help. By contrast, IBM’s documentation is self-explanatory, in my opinion."
"Need to see more API portal features like monetizing APIs and private cloud readiness."
"As webMethods Integration Server is expensive, that's its area for improvement."
"Forced migration from MessageBroker to Universal Messaging requires large scale reimplementation for JMS."
"Version control is not very easy. The packages and the integration server are on Eclipse IDE, but you can't compare the code from the IDE. For example, if you are working on Java code, doing version control and deployment for a quick comparison between the code isn't easy. Some tools or plug-ins are there, such as CrossVista, and you can also play with an SVN server where you have to place your package, and from there, you can check, but you have to do that as a separate exercise. You can't do it from the IDE or webMethods server. You can't just right-click and upload your service."
"We need more dashboards and reporting engines that can provide detailed information for management. In short, we need better analytics."
"The installation process should be simplified for first time users and be made more user-friendly."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
Camunda is ranked 2nd in Business Process Design with 69 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.
