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

Camunda vs WebRatio comparison

 

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 Management (BPM)
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
78
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (3rd), Process Automation (1st), Business Orchestration and Automation Technologies (7th)
WebRatio
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
38th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Business Process Management (BPM) category, the mindshare of Camunda is 7.2%, down from 20.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of WebRatio is 1.2%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Management (BPM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Camunda7.2%
WebRatio1.2%
Other91.6%
Business Process Management (BPM)
 

Featured Reviews

CristianoGomes - PeerSpot reviewer
Owner at a tech services company with 1-10 employees
Supports long-running asynchronous processes effectively but has not evolved much in recent years
I think Camunda is focusing too much on the SaaS offering right now and not much on improving and developing the product itself. I did not see any innovations on that aspect, especially for the open-source version. I was making some tests recently and the tool seemed pretty much the same as it was three or four years ago. Since they made the move to cloud deployment in a more SaaS-oriented way, they do not invest too much in the community version. To be honest, it did not change much from the Activiti initial version. Activiti was pretty much what Camunda is today. They invested a lot on Zeebe and made it the engine for their SaaS cloud version. Camunda itself, the embedded engine, did not evolve too much. They could invest more on that.
reviewer1485573 - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Services Consultant at a consultancy with self employed
Little coding needed and speeds development time but lacks documentation
The maintenance aspect is too heavy. Moving from one version to the other made the solution change, and not in a way that we liked. Typically there are documents about the release of new versions and a set of activities required to migrate from one to the other. This time, it was very messy. There were issues surrounding the management of the release. This could potentially be due to the fact that WebRation, in the past, had started to make some choices regarding the framework and architecture that were changed later. In the past, we'd use a strategy as the environment, as an architectural pattern for the application. Now, it's moving more on the spring framework and this initiated some change that obviously had an impact on our application. It's caused a problem with maintenance. The solution seems to have changed its approach. Now, it's more related to a federative application environment in a monolithic aspect. While the solution was interesting at one point, everything is moving towards the cloud. WebRatio should be moving also in the web approach. Currently, you have to install an environment inside the desktop. The future is the cloud. Normally with a low code environment, there is a VPN notation - maybe a WebML or FML notation. If they can move in to have an environment that has a running machine at the end, it would be great. Obviously, some components on the server-side should be deliberate. Normally it's the model you control that's step-by-step and has a very simple flow. In the digital environment, in the organization, the process is more complex. The quality of the documentation and the community surrounding the product are poor. They need to give users more documentation and build up the surrounding community. As it isn't a well-known product, it's hard to find professionals to work with it.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"EC2 makes scaling horizontally incredibly easy, especially when working under the ECS service."
"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"
"The documentation and all that they have done is just splendid."
"The architecture is good because it's a headless workflow. I can create my own frontend, and it's fully API-based."
"Based on other products, we've found the most appropriate results coming out from the Camunda BPM engine."
"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."
"We can share, discuss, and develop the model together — from a distance. It's really helped us during these times of isolation."
"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."
"The product is low-code, which means you need less knowledge to do tasks and a company can still speed up the development process."
"I chose to settle for an academic solution (WebRatio) that meets my licensing requirements at a very low cost while still providing solid local support via partner."
"The initial setup isn't too complex."
 

Cons

"If Camunda could develop something that creates user forms that would be a great feature to have. They also need to improve the UI."
"They have a migration plugin that can be used to migrate from one BPM to another BPM. It is in the beta stage since last year."
"Especially when you use the open-source version, there are issues with performance."
"The GUI needs to be improved, with more configuration options."
"The upfront enterprise-level support could have been better."
"We're trying to put the people from the business to do it. We are using APIs, and we have open APIs to define our APIs and the request-response that each call requires and sends. So, to base the mapping on that, there was nothing to help. I know that with some tools, such as Oracle tools, you can see the input and expected output. With drag and drop, you can take one property from the left and drag it to the right, and it does all the mapping itself, but that's not the case with Camunda. So, for me, this is something that can be improved."
"On the other hand, if I were rating it for use by the public then I would rate it a three out of ten."
"The support definitely can be improved."
"The maintenance aspect is too heavy."
"Interfaces are still not very well developed. Scripts on the same web page conflict with each other and this requires careful consideration of the process and application logic, which should not be the case."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 evaluation of my customers on pricing is that it is reasonable."
"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 product is expensive for a small or medium-sized company."
"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."
"The cost of this solution is better than some competing products."
"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."
"We're using the free version. We used the Enterprise version for some time. If I compare free versus what we paid at that time, the Enterprise version costs a lot. For the additional functionality that we got with the Enterprise version, it was too costly."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Management (BPM) solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
24%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Comms Service Provider
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business43
Midsize Enterprise15
Large Enterprise29
No data available
 

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
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Camunda BPM
No data available
 

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
Unicredit Leasing, Acer, Gruppo Torinese Transporti, A2A, SET Distribuzone, Dolomiti Energia, AIM Gruppo, IFC CNA_ Amsa
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda vs. WebRatio and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.