Today I was asked from customers how to compare Camunda with the Imixs-Workflow engine. This question often comes up when projects try to evaluate and compare workflow engines. My short answer to this question is: You shouldn’t compare these two engines. In the following, I will try to explain this in more detail.
First of all, I would like to make it clear that this is not an evaluation of the two engines, but only to show the different criteria that come into question for an evaluation. So first, let’s look at the similarities between Camunda and Imixs.
Both engines are open source frameworks. Both are implemented in Java and both support the BPMN 2.0 standard. But these are already the only similarities that both frameworks have in common. You could now argue that Camunda is essentially based on Spring and Imixs-Workflow is a Jakarta EE implementation. One could also highlight the different modeling concepts that both frameworks represent (I have talked about this some times ago). But all these are details of architecture and implementation in my opinion. The main difference is quite another one.
What Is Your Target Audience?
The real reason why these two systems cannot be compared with each other lies in the different target groups for which these two frameworks were developed.
The target audience for Camunda is clearly developers. A key idea of Camunda is to facilitate the development of complex business logic for software projects. Camunda offers a powerful way to model program logic and thus raise it to a more abstract level. Program flows no longer have to be hard-coded, but can be described using BPMN models. The execution of the program flow is then taken over by the workflow engine. This is an ingenious way to make a software system more flexible and to map the program flow, which is often defined by the business department, in a modeling layer that is understood by both – the product owners and the developers. The modeling is thus closely coupled to the program code and the modeling is typically done by the developer himself or by an architect.
In contrast, Imixs-Workflow addresses the business development and follows a low-code approach. Even though the implementation of interfaces – so-called plug-ins or adapters – is carried out by the software developer in Imixs-Workflow too, the Imixs BPMN engine is aimed more at the business analyst and the responsible business department. Imixs Workflow offers powerful possibilities to model and describe complex business processes from a business perspective. The modeler describes the flow of a business process and connects interfaces to different IT systems via provided adapters. It is not important for the modeler to know the implementation details of an interface. He can address them through parameters in his model and thus influence their behavior. The process flow and the interfaces are decoupled by the model. This is also known as low-code development. The goal of Imixs Workflow is to empower the business to develop new business processes without having to implement new Java code or redeploy the software system itself. This means that development cycles can be drastically shortened.
Conclusion
While Camunda and Imixs Workflow may appear similar at first glance, sharing open-source foundations and BPMN 2.0 support, they serve fundamentally different purposes. Camunda excels as a developer-centric tool to implement complex program logic through BPMN models, making it ideal for software projects where developers need flexible control over the program flow. In contrast, Imixs Workflow embodies a low-code philosophy, empowering business analysts to model and modify processes without deep technical knowledge or code changes. Understanding these distinct target audiences and use cases is crucial when evaluating workflow engines – rather than comparing them directly, organizations should first identify whether they need a developer-focused or business-oriented solution for their specific requirements.