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

Flowgear vs Microsoft Azure Logic Apps comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 17, 2024

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

Flowgear
Ranking in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
28th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Microsoft Azure Logic Apps
Ranking in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
41
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) category, the mindshare of Flowgear is 1.2%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Azure Logic Apps is 6.0%, down from 13.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Microsoft Azure Logic Apps6.0%
Flowgear1.2%
Other92.8%
Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2110344 - PeerSpot reviewer
Team Lead: Solution Developer at Genasys Technologies (Pty) Ltd
Great features, effortless integrations and offers an enhanced experience for users
Some of my current wishlist items for improvements would be to extend the existing timeout setting or have that setting configurable at a user level. Currently, when designing and testing larger workflows, the sessions timeout and re-authentications are frequently required. Also related to the designing and testing of larger and more complex workflows, navigation is sometimes cumbersome. A means of easily navigating and following the various connectors and workflow links would be a welcomed addition.
Gayatri Dhawade - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Architect at Abcl
Has supported seamless integration flows while requiring improvement in cost transparency
Assessing the ease of connecting disparate systems using Microsoft Azure Logic Apps connectors is simple because we have a Standard Operating Process. If we want to use Logic Apps, we just reserve the instances as per our requirement. Even for Blob storage, we use tokenized endpoints that give us access to this storage account, making it secure. At API Gateway, we have policies that help us implement encryption and decryption. Request parameters are mapped automatically, converted to SOAP, XML, or JSON as needed in different formats. We utilize its monitoring capabilities; Event Grids are used for logging events. Additionally, we have implemented a retry mechanism and are using Azure Monitor for end-to-end request tracing.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The no-code visual front end, along with pre-built samples, allows someone with very little technical ability to get an integration up and running."
"Being able to seamlessly make changes to how one can do mapping visually without having to be a seasoned developer is great."
"Well-managed version control of workflows and the simplicity in promoting workflows through each environment has aided my team in developing workflows for various environments without the risk of losing development work."
"It has improved our integration with our data supplier."
"The solution has increased efficiency and productivity and saved us time and money."
"The Flowgear tool is helping us reduce the manual work that is done."
"Great for data flow."
"It's quite similar to Power Optima, but I use it mainly to integrate with databases, and it works well for that purpose."
"The product is very good, as I have seen no downtime in the two years of use."
"Logic Apps is valuable because my team uses it for integrating SaaS tool sets."
"The Logic App's designer is one of the vital features"
"It is a very stable solution."
"I am impressed with the tool's UI and analytics."
"The tool’s biggest benefit is the access we have to other Azure products."
"If there's something that isn't possible, you can write some code and call that code from a Logic App."
 

Cons

"The UI could be improved."
"Currently, when designing and testing larger workflows, the sessions timeout and re-authentications are frequently required."
"The initial setup was a bit complex as we were new."
"The software itself needs to keep up with the daily demand to service all clients as the need arises."
"The product would be nice if it could provide the deployment features in the lower packages."
"We would like to see more learning videos for beginners."
"The product needs to improve the self-help tools and samples."
"The documentation could be better. I think that's the only thing that was causing a normal level of problems. In terms of the documentation, it came from Cosmos DB and an additional product from Microsoft Azure."
"Pricing and handling asynchronous processes are the two main areas that need improvement."
"It's for a limited kind of application or short Apps. And, not for the complex applications."
"Microsoft Azure Logic Apps could have more customization options for connectors."
"The standard logic app could be simplified. Thats what we would like to see in the next release."
"In Logic Apps, it supports AJAX and jQuery as commands to filter out to input the parameter. But regular expressions in general aren't supported well. So, I recommend that Logic Apps could be enhanced by supporting regular expressions (RegEx) more comprehensively ."
"The solution could add an AI version to make it easier for people."
"Microsoft Azure Logic Apps needs further development in consistency and durability, particularly for handling larger data volumes beyond 1 MB."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Microsoft Azure Logic Apps is a little bit expensive, and that is why you use it only for certain types of scenarios."
"The product is quite cheap."
"The pricing is okay. It's not highly priced. It's in the medium range."
"I rate Microsoft Azure Logic Apps's pricing a seven out of ten."
"The pricing is not expensive."
"The tool’s pricing could be better."
"The licensing is cheaper because, compared to other services, Azure services are much cheaper and affordable."
"Logic Apps is cheap with its pay-as-you-go model. We only pay for usage time, no license fees. So Logic Apps is good in that aspect."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) solutions are best for your needs.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Educational Organization
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Large Enterprise1
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise24
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Microsoft Azure Logic Apps?
The solution's most valuable feature is the no-code/low-code feature.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Azure Logic Apps?
Regarding the cost, I find Microsoft Azure Logic Apps to be reasonable; it is not expensive.
What needs improvement with Microsoft Azure Logic Apps?
My experience with their pricing indicates that pricing is complicated to understand and costly. There should be some cost reduction. Currently, I don't have any use case beyond what the readily av...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Azure Logic Apps, MS Azure Logic Apps
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
nord lock, mission linen supply, esmart systems
Find out what your peers are saying about Flowgear vs. Microsoft Azure Logic Apps and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.