CA Process Automation is an advanced tool designed to streamline workflows, automate repetitive tasks, and improve operational efficiency across organizations. It is tailored for businesses seeking robust automation capabilities.
| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| CA Process Automation | 1.0% |
| Camunda | 10.9% |
| IBM BPM | 5.3% |
| Other | 82.8% |
| Type | Title | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Process Automation | Jun 23, 2026 | Download |
| Product | Reviews, tips, and advice from real users | Jun 23, 2026 | Download |
| Comparison | CA Process Automation vs Camunda | Jun 23, 2026 | Download |
| Comparison | CA Process Automation vs Control-M | Jun 23, 2026 | Download |
| Comparison | CA Process Automation vs Temporal | Jun 23, 2026 | Download |
| Title | Rating | Mindshare | Recommending | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Camunda | 4.1 | 10.9% | 89% | 78 interviewsAdd to research |
| Pega Platform | 4.1 | 5.1% | 91% | 87 interviewsAdd to research |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 2 |
| Large Enterprise | 9 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 25 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 15 |
| Large Enterprise | 17 |
CA Process Automation enables companies to optimize their workflows by automating processes and integrating with existing systems, reducing manual efforts and improving response times. Its robust architecture supports complex workflows and offers extensive customization, allowing businesses to scale their automation efforts efficiently. This tool is ideal for optimizing productivity by minimizing errors and ensuring consistent process execution.
What are the essential features of CA Process Automation?In financial services, CA Process Automation can optimize transaction processing and compliance workflows. Healthcare industries utilize it to streamline administrative tasks like patient data management. In manufacturing, it enhances supply chain operations by automating inventory control and quality checks, leading to more efficient production cycles.
CA Process Automation was previously known as CA IT Process Automation Manager.
| Author info | Rating | Review Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Automation Solutions Developer at HCL Technologies | 5.0 | We use this tool to automate IT infrastructure incidents, improving MTTR and customer experience. It's easy to manage and schedule, but I wish it had ML/AI auto-triggering and OCR capabilities. |
| Senior Consultant at a tech consulting company with 51-200 employees | 3.5 | I find CA Process Automation a powerful, versatile orchestration tool for client needs. It's easy to debug, but I wish it had better regex and more open-source features for flexibility. |
| Business Manager Data Center Solutions - PSG SAP & Software at Fujitsu Technology Solutions GmbH | 4.5 | We use CA Process Automation for digital transformation, finding it scalable, user-friendly, and reliable. It significantly improves efficiency by automating processes and saving costs. I wish for an interface to integrate BPM models more easily. |
| Design Lead at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees | 4.5 | I found this product's import/export and versioning features saved significant time, allowing me to build a robust ITSM integration framework. Customer service was excellent, and it outperformed previous solutions, though performance details and JavaScript support could improve. |
| Business Intelligence Analyst & Developer at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees | 4.0 | I find this a highly scalable, stable, and versatile process automation solution, excellent for ETL. Despite the complex initial setup and Java's inherent limitations, it's fit for purpose with strong support, making it a recommended choice. |
| Process Automation Engineer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees | 4.0 | I've used this versatile product for over two years. It automates well and has great customer service, but needs better error handling, a search function, and occasional restarts due to potential memory leaks. |
| Developer at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees | 4.5 | I value CA PAM's strong automation for complex rules, greatly improving our processes. However, its initial setup is extensive, and reconfiguring core connections is awkward. We experienced past stability issues with XA and email. |
| IT Technician at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees | 3.5 | I found the solution very stable and scalable, with excellent customer service. While role management is valuable for security, the initial setup is complex and managing multiple modules requires better integration for a holistic view. |
| Senior Operations Engineer at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees | 4.0 | I find this solution valuable for orchestration and troubleshooting, bringing predictability. It's stable with responsive support. While I desire more form functionality and Python scripting, it performs well with low resource use. |
| Senior Systems Engineer I at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees | 4.0 | I am very satisfied with this product's automation capabilities, significantly improving our processes and efficiency. Support is good, but I'd like better reporting and an improved script editor for an even smoother experience. |
We design end-to-end automation solutions for repetitive tasks performed by IT support teams.
This tool is used in my organization for automating IT infrastructure related incidents or service requests.
It has provided ROI by auto-resolving incidents or requests in the ITSM queue, improved MTTR and SLA adherence, and added value to the delivery of services and the customer experience.
CA Process Automation manager is a very powerful production tool. It has built a lot of processes for the following:
It is a true orchestration engine. We have implemented solution for several clients. I could instrument a lot of client requirements in this product. I have seen this product evolve from day one.
There are a lot of automation savings from any process which is repeatable. Most clients use the translation of man hours saved, using this information to compute the savings realized.
Somehow the product group within CA left the product dry from some regular expression functionality.
Our primary use case for CA Process Automation is that we are supporting this technology's digital transformation. This means we are consulting our customers for their business processes, and we make sure that their requirements will be transformed into digitalization.
The benefits are the efficiency we achieve with such a product. We could automate processes, which we was done in the past by humans. This will speed up the reaction by 10 times and will save us a lot of money.
It would be good if we could have an interface where we could connect to our BPM tool modeling software, which we could automatically transfer this BPM tool model into the process automation technology.
If you would like to do automation, stability is key. We need a reliable product and that is what we got with CA.
Scalability is important to us. We are using the built-in, high availability and scalable product, and we are happy with it.
I was not involved in the initial setup.
Our customers made a huge investment in it, and we are happy with that.
It is important is for the automation that you set up a central library for your automated processes to ensure the synergy potential. Also, you are able to communicate which process are already automated, so you do not have to reinvent the wheel and that your colleagues can connect to the central library and can use already developed processes.
As a developer, the biggest time-saver was its import/export features and versioning. Using template-based process objects and code, I was able to make extremely complex changes with a great deal of success and ease across hundreds of objects, which took minutes, as opposed to having to use the GUI, which would have taken days. The ability to import objects as new versions of existing objects, and the ability to make the prior version the current version aided in development, bug fixes, and deployments.
I used the product to develop a process orchestration “framework” to be used in systems integrations between customer and internal ITSM applications (e.g., primarily for Change Management, CMDB, Incident Management, Problem Management, and Request Management). The framework, which made excellent use of stored procedures, included the following dynamic request-driven features:
In order to accomplish all of this, I made use of CA Process Automation objects (e.g., Processes, Start Request Forms, Calendars, Schedules, and Datasets) and operators (e.g., Run JavaScript, Invoke SOAP Method, Execute Process, and Query Database). Using template objects and template code in combination with extremely robust stored procedures and tables, developers were able to release brand new integrations during every two-week development cycle with a very minimal number of defects discovered during testing. At the end of testing, it was proved the product and the framework was capable of serving every design, performance, and support requirement for our day 1 and day 2 operational needs.
CA offers minimal public information pertaining to the performance drain the usage of some objects and operators introduce to processing. As an example, swim lanes within a process provide an excellent means of organizing operators within a process, but they can introduce substantial performance issues. As another example, it’s better to perform verbose JavaScript execution within a Run JavaScript operator instead of within another operator’s pre- or post-execution script. As yet another example, it’s better to hard-code variables within the process dataset as opposed to creating the variables at run-time. The biggest issue for me is its lack of support for current JavaScript methods and functions, which makes scripts unnecessarily longer than they need to be. It seemed I could only rely on the methods and functions available in ECMA 1 (which was released in 1997), but that wasn’t a deal-breaker and the product is capable of extending its capabilities through the inclusion of other code libraries.
We used it from December 2014 to April 2016.
It’s very important that all of the database servers reside within the same VLAN as the application servers; otherwise, there will be numerous performance issues. Additionally, it’s important to work with CA in order to determine the proper application configuration based on the number of requests you expect to process, the size of those requests, and the number of process instances required to satisfy the objectives of those requests.
Technical support is unequivocally excellent; in fact, the best customer service and technical support I’ve experienced during my 12 years in IT.
Before CA Process Automation, we used BMC Atrium Orchestrator; however, that product was extremely difficult for our support staff to support and had performance issues due to the size and frequency of our requests. Most of our developers found it difficult to trouble-shoot in AO. Before AO, we used Opalis (which is now Microsoft System Center Orchestrator). Opalis is exceptionally easy to develop in and support; however, it suffered through substantially slower performance when compared to AO and CA Process Automation (up to 30 minutes per request) when developed to accommodate all of our integration architects’ design, performance, and support requirements. I should add that I had no training on CA Process Automation; however, I did have training on AO and Opalis, but CA Process Automation was still easier to grasp, develop in, deploy, and support than AO or Opalis.
The initial setup was straightforward. CA produces a great deal of documentation, which is extremely helpful during re/installs and updates. The production configuration was somewhat difficult due to our particular requirements and infrastructure.
Both a vendor team and an in-house implemented it. The orchestration framework was developed in-house. Some integrations utilized custom APIs (developed by third-party developers) that allowed customers to interact with the framework. I would suggest all development work should be done in-house and expedited by using template process objects, dataset objects, start request forms, and code. (You don’t want a third-party developer’s work to cause performance issues against work that has proven its performance capabilities.)
It’s a very good product, but the usage of any product really depends on your design, performance, and support requirements. There are other products that are built for high performance, scalability, and request-driven behavior, such as IBM DataPower Gateway, which provides a much faster and simpler solution to the framework that was developed within CA Process Automation (because it relies exclusively on XSL), and has built-in request sequencing (if you include IBM WebSphere MQ in the mix); however, there is a need for more technical acumen when working with IBM DataPower than with CA Process Automation.
If Google could translate ITPAM, it would say “Scalability”. The solution is highly scalable and provides a fault-tolerant environment. The web-based interface allows administrators to quickly see the status and state of each process being executed. The process design is very versatile in a way that adapts to any customer needs/requirements you may have. It gives the developer a bulk of alternatives, such as web services, JavaScript, or simply drag-and-drop technology to create your process.
For ETL purposes, this application accomplishes each requirement for data manipulation.
The solution engine is in Java. Regardless of developments, the solution will always be limited to what Java offers.
I think I speak for everyone: I’d like to have more best practices and samples in the documentation, and for it to be open for more product integrations.
We've been using it for three years.
There were no issues with the deployment.
CA Process Automation is the one of most stable and scalable solutions, and it's completely fit for the purpose. If we are talking about stability, it is one of the applications that has few errors in the logging files. I would advise you to host the solution on a dedicated server in order to benefit from the full power and system resources.
With scalability, the application will always be limited to what Java offers. However, it offers a bulk of alternatives to achieve the requirements (web services, JavaScript, etc.). In the end, if you’re not able to achieve the final result, it's because you’re not following the right path.
The support is quite close to development teams and they have enough technical knowledge to help a user to achieve their goals. They are fast in serving users, and the responses are accurate. However, the user must be precise in the description of the problem in order to expedite the initial troubleshooting.
I know the whole collection automation solutions that CA offers. I consider that the application fulfills completely its purpose.
The initial setup is a little complex. It has a lot steps where, to a common user, it might not be as simple as desired, but CA support provides documentation and the necessary support to ensure proper installation.
The implementation of this application is fully described within the documentation, I have implemented it both through a vendor team and in-house. CA Support will reassure you that you have completed the implementation successfully.
If you’re planning or looking for an application able to create process automation, stop looking. This is your application, as it is completely fit for the purpose.
We've been able to automate work that would have otherwise been done manually.
Error handling on a per operator basis allowing native retries. For example the get email operator if there is a blip in the network and PAM fails to communicate with exchange it takes the error path when really I’d want it to keep retrying until communication is restored. It can be worked around but then it becomes time consuming and cumbersome to implement. It’s the same for other operators too. I’d like to see a search function on the operations tab when looking at past runs, it’s a right faff sometimes trying to find a previous run.
I've been using it for two years three months.
Every so often the service needs to be restarted otherwise it runs slower and slower. I think this may be due to a memory leak.
It's excellent.
At a previous company I used HPE Operation Studio, ITPAM was already implemented when I joined the company I’m currently at.
I’ve reinstalled it a number of times, it’s straightforward.
It’s a great product, extremely versatile but takes a certain skillset to use and implementation of automation can be time consuming when done properly.
The capability of connecting to unlimited number of databases, email servers, and SOAP services.
Before implementing this product, our Problem and Change Management Processes were very poor. We were unable to implement complex business rules, so our analysts had to do a lot of manual activities and we were very dependent on people’s personal knowledge. Nowadays, thanks to CA Process Automation (PAM), we no longer have this problem. Since PAM is capable of running almost any kind of task, we now have all of the processes' rules placed inside of it.
In general terms, the current features fit our needs very well. Because the process design is something like a “blank page,” the product offers dozens of ways to achieve a specific goal. But, if I had to point out something to be improved, I'd mention the configuration. PAM connects to CA Embedded Entitlements Manager (EEM) for authentication/authorization, and to its database to store information about the process. These configurations can be changed only through the installation wizard. There's no way to update such information in the administration interface, which is, in my opinion, very bad.
This solution has been used here since January 2014.
Lately, this product has been very stable. However, we have faced two major problems in the past. The first one is related to the database’s XA feature, which is mandatory to run CA PAM. Due to an unknown reason, XA stopped working, which caused us to launch a huge investigation. In the end, the root cause of the issue remained a mystery, and our solution was to re-configure XA from scratch. The second big issue was that the email connector suddenly stopped working, and we were unable to get emails from a mailbox. After a lot of time, we found out that the connection sometimes worked and sometimes didn’t. The solution was to implement a workaround to try again if the first attempt fails.
We don't have too much contact with the support team, which is a good sign. In the few instances we did contact them, their technical support was pretty good.
We didn't have an orchestration tool before we purchased CA PAM. We decided to implement PAM because we already used CA Service Desk Manager (SDM) for many years and its licensing includes PAM.
The setup could be a little bit easier. It's very extensive, and it includes a lot of steps that you probably won't understand the need for.
The installation was done in-house. However, all of the processes were created by a vendor team because we didn't have the knowledge to do so.
When compared with other orchestration tools, CA PAM is a strong option, as it has all of the common features of this kind of application. However, it's important to keep in mind that its learning curve can be a problem. I strongly recommend official training for whomever will become an administrator and/or designer.
Ease of installation and maintenance – the role management functionality. We can do role modeling with our privileged accounts. Because of our type of our organization, we have legal considerations so Process Automation is an appropriate solution for us. For the end users it might be worse, but for the security division you get a lot of control.
The role modeling helps us to have more control over our users. It help us straighten up the environment with respect to orphaned accounts, which means the environment is more secure. So the benefit is more internal for IT.
Now there are five different modules, but it’s hard to follow what happens in each location, so we’d like to see the solution more tightly integrated. The new release should be more integrated.
Very stable. So far, perfect.
It is scalable; we have doubled services across the environment.
They were good. They helped us a lot from the beginning, from installation through the whole process. Not just their support, but also their professional services are top notch.
It’s very complex, which is one of the disadvantages. There are a lot of modules to make the concept whole. We required professional services for the installation.
It’s working, but it’s complex. For example, when you provision something, you have take a number of actions in a lot of places to make it work, so it’s hard to have a holistic picture of provisioning. It’s not so nice buying socks, but you need socks.
It’s a long process to make it work – first you have to go through your whole IT organization to identify users and accounts and groups. So you have to consider the impact of changes in the process for the IT group.
There are several valuable features--
It gives us predictability in terms of our use of the solution becuase we can standardize our implementations. That means we can implement more quickly with fewer resources in a process that has been fleshed out over time.
I'd like to see additional form functionality and having Python as an available common script language.
It’s been very stable. At one time we had some issues in a load-balanced environment, but those have since been corrected.
The way we have to interact with Linux machines has been a challenge, but that’s mainly due to how we’ve configured our environment rather than a limitation of the solution.
They’ve been very responsive. They were able to provide a quick solution to my issue and were able to get it resolved.
We were implementing some new functionality that used PA forms – the forms weren’t reading in the data as one would expect. We contacted support and they identified that the issue had been reported previously, they were able to give us the solution, and we corrected it. This happened over about a half day.
It was already in production when I joined the company.
For our use it really does very well. It provides us exactly what we need, and it runs with low-resource utilization and moves quickly. As the product matures it will only get better.
Consider troubleshooting needs for workflows – how do you want those to be handled? The types of integrations you need – VMware, RedHat, and Windows, to be specific. Consider also your security needs, especially any LDAP or authentication integration requirements.
It’s a simple interface to be able to automate our process as needed. It gives us the ability to go into the workflow that had halted for any reason, to research the issue, fix the problem, and continue the workflow. If you’re 600 servers into a 900-server workflow, you don’t have to restart the whole thing.
We took our server provisioning process from about 30 days to about 4 days on the first iteration of implementation. That was in 2012. Now we’ve got provisioning a stack of servers in about 2 hours. We’ve automated probably 15 or 20 manual processes that run on a regular schedule.
Better reporting, because we have to true up our licenses every three months because we license on running concurrent processes, so we have to provide a report to CA every three months using their tool -- which never works.
From a usability point of view, I’d like to see improvement on their script editor so I don’t have to use two tools to generate scripts (right now I develop outside of the tool, bring it into the tool, tweak it, and roll out my workflow).
Very satisfied. Mostly database issues – periodically locked transaction, and then the product goes down and processes don’t run. We haven’t seen that in seven or eight months which might be a result of upgrading to 4.2.1.
We haven’t had to scale it out much, but when we do it’s pretty easy.
They’re always good – it’s a non-issue.
When we upgraded EEM from 8.x to 12.x there was an issue that was not documented; that left us behind a little bit on our update. They gave us a workaround which they knew existed, but the problem was really with the documentation – when we prepped for the upgrade it wasn’t documented and some of the screens didn’t match up, and it wasn’t due to our infrastructure. It was due to a known but non-documented issue with CA.
Management had adopted an “automate everything” attitude and rolled it down to us, so we had to come up with a solution.
We built out the architecture. The initial setup was complex in the context of our environment at the time. Pulling in the right people from networking to get the load balancing correct. CA was there by our side the whole time – if we needed them they were very helpful. In our test environment, CA spent a week with us on-site just to teach us how to use the product. Once we got it in place, they’ve been there right along.
We were looking for a vendor who offered support and a good product. That’s it. We looked at IBM, HP, and Microsoft. The workflow management was the reason we went with CA.
Support, usability, functionality are good. There’s always room for improvement. Make sure you know what it is that you want and don’t back down from those points as you do a POC or an evaluation.
