No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Camunda vs iGrafx Process360 Live Platform comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Camunda
Ranking in Business Process Design
1st
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
90
Ranking in other categories
Process Automation (1st), AI Orchestration Frameworks (3rd), Agentic Automation (5th), AI Agent Builders (9th), Business Orchestration and Automation Technologies (4th)
iGrafx Process360 Live Plat...
Ranking in Business Process Design
18th
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
30th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Process Mining (17th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Business Process Design category, the mindshare of Camunda is 6.7%, down from 10.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of iGrafx Process360 Live Platform is 2.9%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Design Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Camunda6.7%
iGrafx Process360 Live Platform2.9%
Other90.4%
Business Process Design
 

Featured Reviews

PV
Workflow orchestration has supported complex enforcement processes and improves human task integration
Areas that have room for improvement in Camunda include the user interface. We moved from Camunda 7 to Camunda 8, and previously we had Camunda 7 Cockpit, and now we have Operate. The UI of Operate is less user-friendly. It may be a little more modern, but it is less user-friendly, so some insights are missed. The UI could be improved. Another topic is something that should have been recently solved in Camunda 8, but in Camunda 7, we had a case management system based on Camunda, and we had our own identifiers in our system. It was easier in Camunda 7 to link these identifications, the business identification to the process identification, and in Camunda 8, this was not implemented until the 8.10 release. We really missed that feature, as it made it very difficult to embed and especially for debugging. The combination with the new Operate instead of Camunda 7 Cockpit made it difficult to find specific running processes. The maintenance of Camunda is somewhat complex. Recently, we had to move from 8.8 to 8.9 or 8.10, and everything was broken, which cost us a lot of time to repair and revert. The complexity is particularly evident because of the architectural changes Camunda made when moving from Camunda 7 to Camunda 8. It took about three years to make Camunda 8 mature, and sometimes it seems they realized they made a wrong decision by switching to a completely different approach. It is not just a matter of pushing a button and installing it; it has a bigger impact than expected, which is indeed one of the downsides we recently faced. The ability to observe and control processes at runtime, related to Operate, rates at a six in my assessment, so that could definitely be improved.
MR
Solution Consultant at a healthcare company with 51-200 employees
Provides documentation, process mining, simulation, and automation capabilities
If customers want to change the color or the logo, they have to go through every page to verify everything is right. We have a strategic approach for the customer. I was involved in almost 100 sessions where the customers were looking for a one-time process visualization or one-time process mining, not for a long-term association with this tool. The customer's requirements are more tactical than strategic. We had some challenges during this time frame as I was with iGrafx, and electricity costs rose in Germany. One customer stopped a large deal because they had to reduce every non-invested investment due to the electricity bill rising by 500% to 800%.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The architecture is good because it's a headless workflow. I can create my own frontend, and it's fully API-based."
"Camunda has positively impacted my organization by simplifying business process management and improving time to market."
"For an internal project, this is a solution that you can install and have up and running quite quickly."
"The architectural part of Camunda for workflow design is highly valuable, especially the Camunda Modeler, which allows quick process design and implementation."
"The biggest difference between Camunda and Bonita might be that Camunda is simpler and more flexible for setting, though we are at the beginning and need to experiment."
"I see improvements with Camunda mainly in quality and service, as the best return on investment is less work for internal teams and enhanced value for end customers, allowing less experienced personnel to effectively work with Camunda and understand their responsibilities, alleviating dependence on specific knowledgeable employees."
"It is very user-friendly compared to IBM BPM. It's much simpler – it's more streamlined. That means even non-technical departments can use it."
"The best features of Camunda are the design time and run time aspects, as you can visualize the whole process and then integrate your network SMEs or allow business design and developers to collaborate on the workflow."
"If you need software to help you easily design processes, make simulations, build value stream mappings, which has some LEAN features, and DMAIC support, I strongly encourage you to go forward and buy iGrafx."
"Overall, the solution is very useful and has good features."
"Finding the right symbol and creating links, horizontal and vertical are the features I use."
"The IDEF0 add-on solution truly integrates all the process maps through intelligent arrow name management."
"It's a great product, but all the functionalities need to be exploited in order to get the full value of the investment."
"Web diagramming and RACI have helped expedite the process, capture, and ownership initiatives of our organization."
"We think iGrafx is well-priced, affordable; you don’t need a lot of license seats, and it has a good, free, downloadable iGrafx Viewer (akin to Adobe Reader)."
"It has increased accountability by providing defined documentation ownership."
 

Cons

"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."
"The support definitely can be improved."
"We had to do a lot of tweaking; it hasn't been stable from the beginning, but with some effort, it can become stable."
"I'm from the .NET world and I would like to use it, rather than Java."
"The cockpit features of the Camunda Platform can be improved to make it a bit more user-friendly, in terms of providing a bit more user experience for non-technical users. There could be some additional documentation added."
"The deployment model could be improved for easier implementation. More open documentation would be beneficial to understand the deployment process better and facilitate easier setup."
"There is an issue where, in some situations, I need to scale up by observing both CPU and memory usage of containers, yet under the current options available at Amazon, this is not possible."
"Documentation can be improved. Right now, the documentation isn't properly organized."
"One of the areas in the product with certain shortcomings where improvements are required includes the tool's reporting capabilities."
"In the next release, I would like to see more layers like three, four, and five. It might be possible but I haven't seen it yet."
"The look and feel, along with the ease of use of the solution's web modeling version, is an area with certain shortcomings."
"I would like to see a lower price, although when used correctly, you can have a good return on your investment."
"Dragging and dropping shapes is not as user-friendly as in Visio. In Visio, it's very easy to work with shapes and in very few minutes you can plot a whole, multi swim-lane, cross-functional process."
"It would be nice to have a Spanish user interface available to us."
"This is a tool that covers the low end (e.g. Visio) to high end (e.g. Aris), although it's much less user friendly."
"Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a reseller in Mexico."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We are using the community version. There is no licensing cost."
"I use the open-source free version."
"We are using the open-source version of this solution."
"It is less cost-prohibitive than other solutions on the market. This solution was in our price range."
"The price is competitive with products like Bonitasoft and RHPAM (Red Hat Process Automation Manager). We have two versions of Camunda. The first version was open source, without support, but then we got a supported version."
"We use a community version."
"While the license isn't budget-friendly, careful consideration and calculated planning for a significant number of licenses can make it more cost-effective."
"The product is expensive for a small or medium-sized company."
"Earlier, the licensing part was complex because there were so many modules and elements in the tool. Over the last one and a half years, a lot of work has gone into how the product has priced and positioned its tools in the market."
"Our license is a subscription-based model that is per user. The solution is not expensive, I believe a subscription-based model is $10 per user."
"The licensing part is one of the problems. Its licensing depends on the number of users, so it sometimes gets expensive."
"I have heard that the solution's pricing is very competitive."
"My company is trying to replace iGrafx because the license is a little bit expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Design solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
22%
Computer Software Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Construction Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Outsourcing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business48
Midsize Enterprise15
Large Enterprise39
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise7
 

Questions from the Community

How does Bonita compare with Camunda Platform?
One of the things we like best about Bonita is that you can create without coding - it is a low-code platform. With Bonita, you can build the entire mechanism using the GUI, it’s that simple. You c...
Which do you prefer - Appian or Camunda Platform?
Appian is fast when building simple to medium solutions. This solution offers simple drag-and-drop functionality with easy plug-and-play options. The initial setup was seamless and very easy to imp...
Which would you choose - Camunda Platform or Apache Airflow?
Camunda Platform allows for visual demonstration and presentation of business process flows. The flexible Java-based option was a big win for us and allows for the integration of microservices very...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Camunda BPM
No data available
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

24 Hour Fitness, AT&T Inc., Atlassian, Autodesk, Barclays, BNP Paribas, CapitalOne, Commerzbank AG, Deutsche Telekom, Fujitsu, Gainsight, Generali, Goldman Sachs, Provinzial, NatWest Group, Panasonic, R-Kom, Swisscom AG, VHV Group, Warner Music, WellPoint, Zalando
Multinational Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda vs. iGrafx Process360 Live Platform and other solutions. Updated: November 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.