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

QPR ProcessDesigner vs SAP Signavio Process Manager comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 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

QPR ProcessDesigner
Ranking in Business Process Design
22nd
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SAP Signavio Process Manager
Ranking in Business Process Design
5th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
63
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Management (BPM) (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Business Process Design category, the mindshare of QPR ProcessDesigner is 1.6%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SAP Signavio Process Manager is 6.1%, down from 9.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Design Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
SAP Signavio Process Manager6.1%
QPR ProcessDesigner1.6%
Other92.3%
Business Process Design
 

Featured Reviews

it_user794370 - PeerSpot reviewer
‎Senior Advisor with 1-10 employees
It makes communication easier due to transparency on processes
BPM/BPI activities in various business areas. This has been particularly useful in end user workshops where people are able to see and comment on actual process model immediately. This focuses communication and makes it easier to avoid misunderstandings Processes become clearer, easier to…
Sravani Bodanapu - PeerSpot reviewer
Intelligent Ops Journey Expert at ANZ Banking Group
Process modeling has standardized complex banking workflows and drives data‑driven automation decisions
I would assess the impact of process modeling features on operational transparency as a four. I give it a four because of how well the platform could be utilized if one has a license or would be able to access it via collaborative features, and as well be able to communicate, making it less people dependent and more process dependent. A small gap of one is only because if the map has to be shared or if somebody has to work together on a map, similar to how we have Google Forms where more than two people can make changes simultaneously, the map does not allow that. One has to close it, and the next partner can only access the map after I close it. The existing changes are lost if they click on ignore or if they close the diagram. This is one feature which is sometimes bothersome. The gap of one is something that is personal feedback from my end. If someone is a newbie and they are building a map for the first time, they definitely go through a training module. But if somebody is jumping right in to build a map for the first time, which I did more than a couple of years ago, I felt that given the extent to which we have artificial intelligence capabilities right now, it would be nice if whenever you are saving a diagram and if I build it incorrectly in terms of adhering to BPMN 2.0, errors are shown, which is really nice. There are errors and warnings that need to be corrected to adhere to the standards. It is great that it allows me to save, but in order to correct the errors, if I do not understand what the error is trying to tell me. For example, sometimes it says that the element is named wrong. I understand that; it is a verb and noun that is a requirement. But sometimes it says the edge folding is not clear, and despite trying several times, I still do not get it. SAP could consider having AI capabilities to suggest how it can be done immediately on the screen itself, perhaps in the form of a virtual assistant or something. Today, for larger errors, I go to Google to check it and try to understand. If an assistant tells me that I think the arrow may be placed wrong, I think that would help me. It would save time and help me from looking up multiple dictionaries to understand what it is trying to say. At the moment, we are not integrating SAP Signavio Process Manager with existing ERP systems because internally I think we are using multiple enterprise resource planning tools. Because of that, there is a restraint to connect it with SAP Signavio Process Manager, and there is a lot of concern in terms of how data could be used because we work in a banking environment. We are not leveraging, and we have SAP S/4HANA. It would be great if there is a data lake that connects to the process, but at the moment, we do not do that. Every time we build a process, it is picked up by a different team, and they try to connect it with the data lake. It is a great feature which I think can be leveraged, but with the range of legacy systems that the company is using today, there is not much I can comment about how the ERP can be leveraged internally.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"​Processes become clearer, easier to understand, and easier to spot in development areas."
"It makes communication easier due to transparency on processes."
"We had great service directly from QPR."
"This solution makes it easy to model and has good collaboration capabilities."
"I have done a lot of modeling over quite a number of years, and I think that the modeling capabilities in Signavio are state of the art."
"If I were given the opportunity to recommend process software for people to use, I would highly recommend this solution based on my experience."
"The Collaboration Hub is especially useful for collaborative tasks and ensuring transparency across teams."
"It is a scalable solution."
"It's way of handling is really an advantage. It's quite easy to use, without too much training . That's the main point for me."
"Process Manager supports end-to-end transformation. Students can better understand end-to-end activity and processes as well as how they are run. For teaching, it's process discovery, then modeling, and finally optimization and simulation, partly. Typically, we showcase some simulation of the processes, and this is where we finish. That is why we validate that it's properly designed, but also what are the outcomes of modeled processes. There are also options for discussion on process optimization."
"We can use workflow manager to create forms."
 

Cons

"There is definitely a need to produce models in XML. There is already something available, but it seems that transferring between the different modelling tools is difficult."
"SAP Signavio Process Manager's UI is not user-friendly. Its pricing is also high."
"I would like to see more predictive analytics."
"Typically, a business process management suite would cover the whole lifecycle, from discovery to optimization and operations. This is running on the process server and providing some kind of low-code environment for developing business solutions. I think the latter part is missing, where SAP Connector comes in. Specifically, the execution of processes is missing, where you would design forms to take orders. This is typically part of some development environment for the process server to run processes from out of the models."
"I think the price of SAP Signavio Process Manager is a little bit high. Although it is an SAP solution, the price is the most notable issue I found, as other options have better prices for their solutions."
"It's very user-orientated, which is why I gave it a high rating, even if it is not perfect in every corner."
"The workflow automation of the solution is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Customized reporting can be improved to make this a more versatile tool."
"If you have a lot of tasks in the workflow engine then it gets a bit slow."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"This solution provides really great value for the money."
"I found the pricing of the solution to be moderate compared to other choices."
"My client purchased one editor license and the collaboration hub, which covers up to a hundred people."
"I think we're spending about $150,000 a year on licensing costs."
"Lower than the competition with highly flexible licensing plans."
"The customer Journey Modeler is more than twice the price of Process Manager, which is a lot."
"The solution is expensive."
"We are using the free trial version."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Design solutions are best for your needs.
913,924 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Computer Software Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise45
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
Which is better - Signavio Process Manager or Celonis?
SAP Signavio Process Manager is a very robust industrial-grade business process modeling tool. It is easy to use and does not require too much technological involvement. This solution has a collabo...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Signavio Process Manager?
I am not aware of the pricing and licensing of SAP Signavio Process Manager in the current firm I am working for. However, in my last company, Fidelity International, I was introduced to SAP Signav...
What advice do you have for others considering Signavio Process Manager?
I do use the collaborative workspace feature of SAP Signavio Process Manager. Our stakeholders who are outside of SAP Signavio Process Manager environment do use the collaborative feature because t...
 

Also Known As

ProcessGuide, QPR Software ProcessGuide
Signavio Process Editor
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ALPLA
DHL, Coca Cola EP, Prudential, Zalando, T-Systems, Jabil, Endress+Hauser, Rakuten
Find out what your peers are saying about QPR ProcessDesigner vs. SAP Signavio Process Manager and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,924 professionals have used our research since 2012.