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

Mendix vs WorkflowGen comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 18, 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

Mendix
Ranking in Rapid Application Development Software
5th
Ranking in Low-Code Development Platforms
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
61
Ranking in other categories
Mobile Development Platforms (2nd), Agentic Automation (5th), Business Orchestration and Automation Technologies (10th), AI Software Development (11th)
WorkflowGen
Ranking in Rapid Application Development Software
35th
Ranking in Low-Code Development Platforms
35th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (30th), Business Process Management (BPM) (44th), Process Automation (45th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Rapid Application Development Software category, the mindshare of Mendix is 4.1%, down from 7.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of WorkflowGen is 0.9%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Rapid Application Development Software Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Mendix4.1%
WorkflowGen0.9%
Other95.0%
Rapid Application Development Software
 

Featured Reviews

Mitchel Mol BGS - PeerSpot reviewer
CTO at Blue Green Solutions
Has improved development quality and speed but has introduced persistent IDE slowdowns
In recent years, the IDE has been more buggy and slower, and although there have been more features added, I would like to see more stability, as some areas that used to work for a fairly long time are now slower in my development, which feels like a step back. I choose a seven mainly due to the issues we've faced with slowdowns and bugs during development, while runtime has been very stable, and the overall output on Mendix platform is still good; there is definitely some room for improvement, and I would probably have given it an eight or even a nine if those issues weren't hurting my developer output for the past few years. Overall, Mendix platform is stable, but the IDE could be better.
CO
SAP Solution Lead at Johnson & Johnson
Good for automatically triggering workflows, but needs to be more customizable
We use this product for many different reasons related to our business We use it a lot for creating workflows to transfer materials between plants, which is a signature part of what we do. The most valuable feature is the ability to automatically trigger the workflow. This solution needs to be…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I find the fast development speed and low cost to be very valuable features of Mendix. It's a smart solution for busy developers when we need to apply new changes or fixes quickly. Mendix helps to save time and meet project deadlines faster."
"It is stable."
"Mendix isn't just an IDE or a coding language; it's a whole platform where you don't have to worry about hosting or monitoring your application, tracking project progress or user stories, as everything is essentially provided by the platform, and it has a very active community helping you out if you have any questions at all."
"It's amazing that you can build web apps and mobile (hybrid) apps with one code base in a few clicks. It's a full continuous integration environment."
"There is a free version of the solution you can use."
"The features that I have found most valuable with Mendix are its business process management and its minimal low code, both from an interface perspective and from a process perspective."
"What I found most valuable in Mendix is that it's very much suitable for mobile apps such as native Android or IOS supported mobile apps. The multiple features of the platform are very, very attractive and very popular. Mendix has technical features such as microflows and nanoflows. You can also access data models in the platform. These are the features that are very, very strong in Mendix. I got my hands dirty on other low-code platforms, but I have not seen such strong features in them compared to the microflows, nanoflows, and data model access that are in Mendix, including creating and integration. The platform has out-of-the-box adapters or out-of-the-box-connectors that you can integrate with different interface applications such as SAP, Salesforce, Oracle EBS, etc."
"The low-code feature has helped my team and made my work easier because there are default templates, so we don't need to create or write code."
"We use it a lot for creating workflows to transfer materials between plants, which is a signature part of what we do."
 

Cons

"What is lacking is the support of higher level modeling features, like the modeling you do is relatively low level, yet it is still close to programming. We would like to see a more business-oriented modeling environment, like BPMN."
"The code refactoring tools could be better, especially for applications running for years. It's not bad, but it could be smoother. Also, writing new widgets can be trickier than it should be for some people, but not if you're familiar with Mendix."
"You need experienced programmers and developers to understand this solution."
"Needs multiple database connections so an app can directly read/write data to/from multiple databases. This would enable easy splitting of big applications that have complex entity relationships."
"There should be more integration with engineering applications and tighter integration for user authentication, such as single sign-on, etc. They have some of that. It just could be stronger."
"Occasionally, there is downtime if an upgrade is happening in the application."
"I would also like to see automatic adjustment to the Java Heap, whenever an application load becomes too much for the application. It could also use hot database replication."
"Customization is limited compared to traditional coding, and UI adjustments can feel restrictive."
"This solution needs to be more customizable."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Mendix is not open source, but its license cost is cheap, particularly when compared to the Appian license. The license model would depend on how many users you have and how many applications you are creating. If you are creating a single app, you just need to have a single app license, so it's free. If you want a multiple app license to cover two thousand or three thousand users, for example, internal users or external users, then you need to pay for the license. There's also a license model for above three thousand or four thousand, or five thousand internal and external users."
"From a commercial point of view, we would like them to change that they currently sell it as a platform, but as a customer you have to decide upfront the usage of the platform. We would like to have Mendix sell it as a pay as you go model: You pay for what you use, and you don't pay for what you don't use."
"Licensing costs are similar to those for all other IT technology, but they vary by region."
"Its cost is higher than competitors. The cost mostly includes licensing. It is charged per user. The cost model could be better. When you have a big company, what does per user mean? If I have a company where I have 40,000 people who will go to access it but only 200 do, how do you license it and who do you pay for? If they hit it once, do you pay for it? The licensing is complex for a big company. It is easy for us to buy all we can eat, get an enterprise license agreement, and call it good."
"I would not recommend the solution to small and medium-sized businesses because it’s expensive. It’s great for big organizations. I rate the pricing as a three out of ten."
"Mendix licensing cost is based on the number of apps you have on the server. At the basic level, it is free of charge, so that seems reasonable, but once you go beyond that, and when it comes to the number of users on the app, that basic structure doesn't work, and the pricing tends to get a little bit steep."
"The solution is a bit expensive compared to others"
"Mendix seems a bit expensive. But in terms of wanting to have less developers and higher velocity, the total cost of ownership is fine. It's not cheap, though."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Rapid Application Development Software solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Retailer
6%
Comms Service Provider
16%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Retailer
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business28
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise25
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Mendix?
We also use Mendix Enterprise Integration for complex business logic. It's a low-code platform, so we run Mendix in the Mendix Cloud.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Mendix?
I do not have much experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing because the sales or business team usually handles that, and as a developer, I don't have a clear idea.
What needs improvement with Mendix?
Improvements for Mendix include that sometimes it gets hung while loading.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Genzyme, TNT, Yahoo, Capgemini, Roche, D&B, Aegon, kpn, AZL, Sky, Arch, Penn State Univeristy, BancABC
Comcast, Deloitte, Mitsui & Co Ltd, Sanofi Pasteur, Textron, XL Group. WorkflowGen accelerates business process adaptability in 70 countries for 500+ organizations and 1,000,000 users.
Find out what your peers are saying about Mendix vs. WorkflowGen and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.