TomasMikesSenior Business Consultant at Trask solutions a.s.
Anonymous UserPrincipal Engineer at a tech services company
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"For an internal project, this is a solution that you can install and have up and running quite quickly."
"We are documenting all of the processors and VPN. Then we are sharing it with our business users."
"I've found the active community most valuable but it also provides you with a lot of other features."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share the logic within the rules engine with the business, so you can put it up for everybody to read."
"When I compare it with other BPM tools, like IBM, it is great, open source, and free when you use the community version."
"The solution is easily compatible with HTML forms and HTML language programming and that is the most significant part."
"The speed and execution of DMN was a big selling point for us. It's very good at conducting business processes that are easily modeled and presented in a way that's easy to understand."
"It allows me to present or to demonstrate the business process flow, visually, without having to resort to PowerPoint, Visio, or other products."
"The new reporting and the new dashboard features are really good."
"This solution is very stable."
"This solution has streamlined our operation and improved the TAT of sales, operations, and underwriters."
"Good user interface and good add option."
"The solution offers great notifications."
"I like the APIs and the BPM coach is a good tool. But if I had to pick one, it would be the API."
"This tool is very useful when it comes to enterprise-grade automation and governmental processes for the security aspects, performance, and reliability."
"One of the reasons for adopting this solution ten years ago was its ease of use. It had a lot of off-the-shelf functionality, and it did not need to be developed specifically for the project that we were implementing. That was the main reason for adopting it in the beginning."
"This product does the job in terms of executing the workflow."
"The GUI needs to be improved, with more configuration options."
"When you search for Camunda BPM resources or books on how to utilize Camunda BPM, it is lacking. When it comes to Alfresco, there are thousands of resources that can help you to utilize within AWS and its Group Services. I would like to see the usage of Camunda BPM on Amazon Web Services be improved."
"I would say that Camunda should actually focus on small cases as well. There's a lot of space out there, for small businesses. If they can, they should cater to them."
"I would like to see the forms engine available in the open-source version of this solution."
"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."
"I would also like a very easy to use form builder."
"Especially when you use the open-source version, there are issues with performance."
"If there were some industry templates it would have helped significantly, because it is similar to a process map for a domain. That is what we are currently creating, a domain-relevant process map."
"The design of the interface, in general, could be improved. It could be a bit more user-friendly."
"We care about technology and support because support is very important and a BPM is not easy to implement."
"Could increase vulnerability and security patches to make it more robust."
"Finding errors and bugs on the system is not easy. We can't seem to use the events or logs to find them, so it makes it difficult to debug the system. They really need to work on their debugging features to make is much, much easier. It would improve the solution considerably and should be something they add in a future release."
"The debugging needs improvement. There is some confusion surrounding the debugging."
"Importing and exporting between multiple environments is more difficult with other tools."
"IBM BPM lacks openness, that is, the ability to become open for new options in terms of APIs, front-end development, and ecosystem. IBM BPM has been quite closed. One of the main improvements would be to somehow embed the rules engine into IBM BPM. Merging IBM BRMS and the rules engine with IBM BPM would be helpful. If there was some simpler way to define rules without having to put IBM BRMS on top of it, it would be good. It's something that we can get out of Camunda but not out of IBM BPM."
"Our developers are complaining that it's too complex to maintain."
"Patching is required every three months and a major upgrade every two years, which should be optional."
"We are using the open-source version of this solution."
"Camunda is much cheaper."
"I use the open-source free version."
"The open-source version of the product is free to use."
"The cost of this solution is better than some competing products."
"Licensing costs are anywhere from $80,000 to $100,000 USD per year."
"We use the open-source version, which can be used at no cost."
"I think Camunda BPM can improve their licensing costs. It isn't easy to find clients with Camunda BPM licenses mainly because it's quite expensive."
"It should provide more flexibility to connect with external systems, and there should be in-built services that can be used to integrate with other systems quickly."
"The price is quite inflated, and I think that our service contract is per year with monthly fees."
"Its price is on the higher side, and it can be improved. Its licensing is on a yearly basis. There are no additional costs."
"IBM could improve the price. It is far too expensive."
"I wish it was less expensive. I don't know why their pricing model is so high for a piece of software that could benefit so many. It just seems to me that they could have a lower cost, maybe with fewer features or whatever, but it should be possible to do a lower cost workflow software that uses the same interface and underlying engine but does not cost so much that you have to be a Fortune 50 company to buy it. It is annoying to me. There are a lot of solutions that IBM has that are really powerful but nobody can afford them. They know their business, but I still feel that there are a lot of customers who would benefit from this sort of thing. I don't know what this elitism is all about. I am sure they have people doing the money numbers, but it seems like you can make a lot more money by selling it to way more people for a little bit less."
"When considering the features of the solution the price is expensive compared to competitors."
Earn 20 points
Reinventing Process Automation for the Digital Enterprise
Our process automation platform enables tens of thousands of developers to design, automate and improve processes and provide better customer experiences, deliver projects faster and increase business agility.
A complete process automation tech stack with powerful execution engines for BPMN workflows and DMN decisions paired with essential applications for modeling, operations and analytics
Genpact Cora SeQuence is ranked 25th in Business Process Management with 1 review while IBM BPM is ranked 6th in Business Process Management with 20 reviews. Genpact Cora SeQuence is rated 9.0, while IBM BPM is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Genpact Cora SeQuence writes "Good reporting, a very good dashboard, and easy to set up". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM BPM writes "A very stable and powerful tool for handling lots of concurrent users, but it is expensive, and the Eclipse-based tool has performance issues when you have a lot of developers". Genpact Cora SeQuence is most compared with Bizagi, Appian, ARIS BPM and AgilePoint, whereas IBM BPM is most compared with IBM Business Automation Workflow, Pega BPM, Apache Airflow, ARIS BPM and Appian.
See our list of best Business Process Management vendors.
We monitor all Business Process Management 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.