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

Camunda vs WebRatio 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 Management (BPM)
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
81
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (3rd), Process Automation (1st), AI Orchestration Frameworks (3rd), Agentic Automation (9th), AI Agent Builders (10th), 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 September 2026, in the Business Process Management (BPM) category, the mindshare of Camunda is 7.0%, down from 16.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of WebRatio is 1.1%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Management (BPM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Camunda7.0%
WebRatio1.1%
Other91.9%
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

"The visibility – the diagrams you create – and then being able to automate based on them are valuable features. It's easy to explain and comprehend, and the integration aspects are valuable."
"We are very strongly recommending Camunda BPM; it is good, it is easy, the community is good, and there is a lot of support if you are stuck anywhere."
"There's this graphic that tells you how many lines or how many tickets are in each step. In that way, you know where you stand. I find this feature very valuable."
"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."
"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 Camunda BPMN Platform is very flexible and gives several options to deploy and scale it."
"The headless nature of the Camunda Platform is something that has helped us to build our own logic and platforms on it."
"We helped our customer to reduce their licensing and operational costs to a larger extent by proposing Camunda BPM to replace the existing BPM solution."
"The initial setup isn't too complex."
"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."
 

Cons

"It lacks some preset features and configurations which would make it more plug-and-play for customers."
"There are a few things that I'm missing. For instance, the user interface creator, which I know other systems have, like Aurea or Lombardi, which are IBM solutions. The interface creator, including the data model creator or some module which would allow the users who are not programmers or business consultants and who are not technically skilled in database and Java programming, to create data models and user interfaces."
"An improvement would be to support Angular 2 instead of AngularJS, which is quite old."
"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 think Camunda is focusing too much on the SaaS offering right now and not much on improving and developing the product itself."
"It would be helpful if the solution had additional out-of-the-box activities."
"We have to wait to see if Bonita provided us with some features that Camunda does not or if we experience any stability issues."
"As we experienced some difficulties in the beginning, deployment took almost a month."
"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

"The evaluation of my customers on pricing is that it is reasonable."
"Camunda's pricing is good."
"Cheaper licensing and resources than competitors"
"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."
"When compared with the proprietary products, the pricing costs are much less, even though it is an enterprise edition."
"Camunda has a free service as well as a commercial service. We are using the free service."
"We are using the open-source version of this solution."
"Camunda is a cheaply priced product, making it one of its major USPs."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Management (BPM) solutions are best for your needs.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
22%
Computer Software Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Manufacturing Company
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business44
Midsize Enterprise15
Large Enterprise33
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, 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
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: September 2026.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.