Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Camunda vs No Magic MagicDraw comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 15, 2025

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
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
77
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Management (BPM) (1st), Process Automation (1st)
No Magic MagicDraw
Ranking in Business Process Design
14th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Business Process Design category, the mindshare of Camunda is 12.3%, up from 11.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of No Magic MagicDraw is 2.9%, down from 3.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Design
 

Featured Reviews

FABIO NAGAO - PeerSpot reviewer
Reduces costs with hardware abstraction and simplifies scaling
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. I have to choose between monitoring CPU or memory to scale my solution. Not every software is built for deployment as a container service, although the current architecture trend is changing this.
DiegoRangel - PeerSpot reviewer
Enhanced team communication and design exploration with integrated simulation tools
I was using No Magic MagicDraw to model operations, such as using different kinds of operations with ships or crafts and other systems No Magic MagicDraw facilitated great communication within the team and allowed for the exploration of different designs and architectures, which was beneficial…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We like the idea of working with Cawemo because it enables us to keep on working, remotely or not. It allows us to collaborate between areas. It's easy to model and easy to use"
"It is an absolutely stable solution."
"I can use any other tools to create services and the UI, and then use them together with the Camunda BPMN engine."
"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."
"I love that Camunda is a very developer-friendly platform, and my customers have evaluated the pricing as reasonable."
"It is open-source. It supports microservice orchestration. This is what we are really interested in. We can customize our products depending on the use cases."
"Easy to use and easy to integrate into the products and applications we provide for our customers."
"The most valuable feature is that, with a visual system, you can try to have a process client before beginning the programming for the application."
"I would rate MagicDraw a nine out of ten because of the price. Enterprise Architect has a lot of bugs and MagicDraw is a lot more accurate and flexible. It's a level better."
"The most valuable feature of No Magic MagicDraw is the simulation capabilities and interface."
"The beauty of MagicDraw is that it has a simulation part, so you can simulate your model to validate it. The simulation allows you to bring in code off of an external code that you can write to set up the simulation and execute the code."
"The technical support is very good."
"The most valuable feature is the amount of flexibility that one has to model, which is great for an individual."
"No Magic has the tools and capability to model a complete enterprise and all product lines."
"The MBFC capability of MagicDraw is higher than the other competitors."
"I think one of the key things is the plugins for integration with requirements management tools like Doors"
 

Cons

"When trying to design rule tables the solutions graphical user interface could improve, it could be more user friendly."
"Lacking in forms visualization."
"I would also like a very easy to use form builder."
"The product must provide more videos and training materials."
"Collaborations and process documentation in Camunda Platform are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"The business model could be easier to understand."
"I think that Camunda can try to do better when it comes to solving the complexities of all the products in its software stack."
"Probably one area I look forward to has to do with AI and how Camunda sees the AI angle on workflow."
"They don't really support code engineering, and that's why we have to move to Enterprise Architect. MagicDraw is stuck at C++03 standards, whereas most C++ programs today want to use the latest definition of the C++ standards. We were at C++11, and we wanted to do code engineering with C++11 or 17, but they didn't support it. That pushed us into a different tool, which is Sparx Enterprise Architect."
"The documentation for MagicDraw and the video tutorials compared to other competitors is an area for improvement."
"It's very focused on specific modern languages and it doesn't do necessarily general systems software engineering with diagrams. They should expand the diagram types for the languages."
"The cost of upgrading the product should be lower."
"The technical support is not very good."
"Some of No Magic MagicDraw's most valuable features were its integration with other simulation tools, such as MATLAB, the seasonal plugin, and the Rangel simulation toolkit."
"There's lots of documentation. They process multiples of guides. They've got all kinds of guides and documentation out there, but it's kind of hard to find. There are a lot of videos. You can go to YouTube and find videos on how it's been used in different ways, but it just kind of scratches the surface."
"The UI UX of the tool is not really user-friendly and needs to be completely reformed."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The cost of this solution is better than some competing products."
"There were some features that were only available in the paid version."
"There is a bit of scope for improvement in how the licensing and pricing are done. They are based on the number of processing instances you execute on the cluster... but on the self-hosted mode, the pricing model should be customized."
"Camunda is a cheaply priced product, making it one of its major USPs."
"The product's price depends on the number of processes that need to be automated or where the orchestration part needs to be used. The product is affordable for medium and large enterprises."
"We use a community version."
"There is an open-source version available, that in its core features (workflow and decision engine, modeler) is exactly the same as in the enterprise version."
"The price of the solution is reasonable."
"I would say licensing would be anywhere from $3,500 to $6,500 per person or per seat (it's a per seat style license)."
"I rate the pricing a ten out of ten. It is an expensive product compared to software for model-based system engineering."
"The licensing is on a yearly basis, and it's expensive."
"In addition to the initial cost, you have to pay annually for support in order to get the upgrades."
"The price of No Magic MagicDraw could improve. The price of the solution is too expensive for smaller-sized companies. There should be a better pricing model."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Design solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
26%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
6%
Insurance Company
6%
Manufacturing Company
22%
Government
14%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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...
What do you like most about No Magic MagicDraw?
There is a lot of documentation available on the Internet to understand its functionality.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for No Magic MagicDraw?
Maybe the price is a little bit high for a small company to acquire this tool. However, they offer trial versions and trial licenses for members of INCOSE.
What needs improvement with No Magic MagicDraw?
For CAMEO, it's not only the ease of use, it's versatility, its communicability, but Rhapsody is the worst tool I've ever used. It is very difficult, not user-friendly, and very expensive. It works...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Camunda BPM
MagicDraw
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

24 Hour Fitness, Accruent, AT&T Inc., Atlassian, CSS Insurance, Deutsche Telekom, Generali, Provinzial NordWest Insurance Services, Swisscom AG, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, VHV Group, Zalando
Northrop Grumman, Labcorp, Deposco, ClearView Training, IT Services Promotion Agency, Intelligent Chaos, Metalithic Systems Inc., Sodifrance
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda vs. No Magic MagicDraw and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.