A Tool for Comparing and Selecting Workflow Engines
Karim Ba
ENSIAS, Universit
e Mohammed V - Souissi, BP 713 Agdal - Rabat, Morocco
Workflow management systems, Workflow management systems evaluation, Workflow management systems
comparison criteria.
The task of selecting a workflow engine becomes more and more complex and risky. For this reason, organ-
isations require a broad, and a clear vision of which workflow engines are, and will continue to be, suitable
for changing requirements. This paper presents a workflow engines comparison model to analyse, compare,
and select business process management modelling and enactment engines (Workflow Engines or WFEs)
according to user specific requirements. After the description of the underlying model itself, we present the
implementation of this workflow engines comparison model through our multi-criteria workflow engines com-
parison and selection prototype WFESelector. The later proposes two scenarios for selecting relevant WFE :
either to express dynamically multi-criteria query upon a WFE evaluation database, or to browse the whole
WFE classification through a reporting aggregation based dashboard. WFESelector is subsequently experi-
mented to assess criteria satisfaction on a very large number of open source workflow engines (as numerous
as 35).
Enterprise business models are becoming more and
more complex, involving numerous interacting ap-
plications within rich business and technical con-
texts. Thus, enterprise business processes inherit this
business models growing complexity. Since those
business processes are considered in the enterprise
business core strategy, they need workflow engines
that handle suitably the continuously growing busi-
ness processes management complexity. Nowadays,
business process management engines and Workflow
Management Engines (WFE) become numerous, het-
erogeneous, and provide several functionalities which
make the task of selecting a WFE complex and risky.
For this reason, organisations require a broad, and a
clear vision of which workflow engines are, and will
continue to be, suitable for changing requirements.
Selection of such workflow engines is strategic for
nowadays organisations.
Our contribution is at one side, to present our
workflow engine comparison criteria model, and its
implementation within WFESelector prototype, our
multi-criteria workflow engines comparison and se-
lection tool, and at the other side, to experiment the
strength of our approach and prototype. The pa-
per is organised as follows : section 2 discusses re-
lated works, section 3 presents our workflow engines
comparison model, section 4 illustrates the approach
through the results of our workflow engines compar-
ison model experiment, and section 5 concludes and
gives an outlook for this work.
Many other works have studied the problem of pro-
ducing a generic workflow engine comparison model,
but none of them has proposed a rich workflow com-
parison model as we propose (35 comparison sub-
criteria). (Lei and Singh, 1997) compares workflow
engines according to their process definition meta-
models through eight criteria : Granularity, Con-
trol Flow, Data Flow, Organisational Model, Role
Baïna K. (2007).
WFESelector - A Tool for Comparing and Selecting Workflow Engines.
In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Enterpr ise Information Systems - DISI, pages 330-337
DOI: 10.5220/0002397303300337
Binding, Exception Handling, Transaction Support,
and Commitment Support. (M. Rosemann and zur
Muehlen, 1998) compares workflow engines accord-
ing to their organizational meta model, and Process
Meta Model richness and expressivity. (Van Der
Aalst et al., 2003) tackles the comparsion problem
from the point of view of the ability of workflow en-
gines to support workflow patterns. (Yu and Buyya,
2005) bases its comparison of scientific workflow en-
gines on four criteria : Workflow Design, Workflow
Scheduling, Fault Tolerance, and Data Movement.
(Stoilova and Stoilov, 2006) focuses its comparison
on a subset of five sub-criteria of (McCall et al., 1977)
software quality criteria : Reliability, Usability, Effi-
ciency, Maintainability, and Portability.
Our workflow engines comparison model will be
presented in three steps : first, section 3.1 present
the chosen criteria for workflow engines comparison,
then section 3.2 shows how key performance indi-
cators are used to evaluate presented criteria, and fi-
naly section 3.3 summarizes our approach through the
presentation of a workflow engines comparison meta-
3.1 Workflow Engines Comparison
Criteria Model
WFESelector bases its Workflow engine comparison
upon 31 criteria and sub-criteria clustered in three
sub-classes as shown in figure 1: (1) 12 executabil-
ity criteria, (2) 10 vision criteria, and (3) 9 contex-
tual criteria. Those criteria and their sub-criteria are
derived from criteria proposed by WARIA (Workflow
And Reengineering International Association) (war, ),
from criteria highlighted by workflow research (Re-
ichert and Dadam, 1997; Bernstein et al., 1999; Rus-
sell et al., 2005; Gaaloul et al., 2005; Ba
ına et al.,
2006; Gaaloul and Godart, 2005) from software qual-
ity factors defined by McCall et al. (McCall et al.,
1977), and finally from auxiliary contextual proper-
ties on Workflow engines. These criteria are sum-
marised in figure 1 and described below.
1. Executability criteria:
(a) API & GUI support:
i. Activity Programming (API Proposition -
WfMC, OMG, Wf-XML, SWAP, etc.-) The API
is the cornerstone of activity programming,
Figure 1: Workflow Engine Criteria Classification.
with support for deadlines management, and
events mechanisms: Facilities Provided by the
Engine, API Completeness, and Events Pro-
cessing Mechanisms ;
ii. Internet Support (Web/Internet oriented
GUI) The user interface can be operated from
a simple Web browser. This covers the follow-
ing functions: worklist handler, activity exe-
cution, graphical procedure status, and start-
ing a procedure instance.
(b) Execution Properties:
i. Throughput Rates (Efficiency) Depends on
the efficiency of the engine, and its capac-
ity to run on top of a distributed cluster of
servers: Server Scalability, Distributed archi-
tecture, and Client Implementation ;
ii. Distribution (MOM support, asynchronous
messages support, triggers/notifications) sup-
port Supports co-operation, within the same
company or set of partners, of several inde-
pendent Workflow engines operated by differ-
ent departments (e.g. a manufacturing process
that triggers a purchase order process, and
cascades to an Extranet based supply chain
process): Import/Export, and Automatic Co-
operation Mechanism ;
iii. Dynamic Changes (Modification of process
model at runtime) (Reichert and Dadam,
1997) Collaborative and ad-hoc procedures,
even if known in advance, must be defined
on the spot (adaptive workflow (Bernstein
et al., 1999)). Since they might be incom-
plete, it is important to be able to change
them dynamically to factor in unforeseen sit-
uations: Change Procedure Network Defi-
nition, Change Variables Definition, Change
Dispatching Rules, Late Sub-Network Defini-
tion, and Change Activity Implementation ;
WFESelector - A Tool for Comparing and Selecting Workflow Engines
iv. Procedure Definition (Maniability and us-
ability) The best way to shorten process defi-
nition time is to offer a graphical process defi-
nition tool. Further assistance can be provided
if the Workflow engine supports additional
features like skip, undo, offered/accepted
states, suspend, delegate and reroute: Graph-
ical Definition, Assisted Definition of Rules-
/conditions, Embedded Feature, BPR and
Simulation ;
v. Ready-to-use agents (Maturity and exe-
cutability) The engine is provided together
with ready-to-use agents. No programming
is required to run defined procedures. This
is mandatory for ad-hoc Workflow applica-
tions and includes: a worklist handler, and a
standard activity agent for managing the dia-
logue with the user: Worklist Handler, Proce-
dure Network Visualizer, and Standard Activ-
ity Agent.
(c) Software Quality based Factors:
i. Adaptability (Development framework
proposition) The engine minimises the nec-
essary modification effort at requirement
evolution ;
ii. Maintainability (Code readability and docu-
mentation) The engine minimises the effort to
localise and correct bugs ;
iii. Reusability (Extensibility) The engine can be
partially or totally used with an other applica-
tion ;
iv. Reliability (Exception management and fault
tolerance) The engine does what it is sup-
posed to do, and what the user expects it to
do, and it does so without breaking anything
in the process: accuracy, error tolerance, con-
sistency and simplicity in design. (Russell
et al., 2005) details workflow execption as 5
types : work item failure, work item deadline
expiry, resource unavailable, external trigger,
and constraint violation).
v. Testability The engine facilitates test proce-
2. Vision criteria:
(a) Model Richness:
i. Procedure Power (Richness and process
model expressivness) The capacity of the pro-
cedure development environment to express
the real complexity of procedures in all their
smallest details: Network Structure, Variables
Definition, Exception Processing, Complexity
Management, and Verification ;
ii. Standards compliance WfMC, OMG, IETF,
(vision: BPMI, SOA, WARIA);
iii. Data flow variable containers I/O mapping,
through a database/MOM/Broker/XML Bus,
etc ;
iv. Control flow sequence, split (and/or/xor), join
(and/or/xor), iteration, sub-Workflow, multi-
ple activity occurrences, etc ;
v. Transactional Flow After a failure, transac-
tional external transitions are fired by external
entities (scheduler, human intervention, etc.)
and allow to the failed activity to interact with
the outside environment to recover a consis-
tent state. The goal is to bring the failed
process back to some semantically acceptable
state. Thus, failure inconsistent state can then
be fixed and the execution resumed with the
hope that it will then complete successfully ;
vi. Dispatching & Organization Representa-
tion (Advanced group management) The ca-
pability to dispatch each individual activity to
the participant with the correct level of ac-
cess rights and appropriate role in the orga-
nization: Dispatching Rules, Organizational
model, Administration and Privacy, Substitu-
tion Rules, and Import from Directories ;
vii. Enterprise Application Integration (EAI)
(Interoperability) Evaluates the tools pro-
vided to take benefits of most modern Enter-
prise Application Integration: message queu-
ing, application adapters, COM/DCOM dis-
tributed integration, CORBA and/or Web Ser-
vices support, and 2PC transaction support ;
viii. Activity Definition (Model driven or code
driven) Activity implementation (no program-
ming) can be achieved by providing embed-
ded support, libraries of activities, and forms
generation tools integrated with the process
definition tool. Additional flexibility can be
provided by a library of basic actions that can
be scripted (possibly graphically) to imple-
ment activities: Activity Library, Form Gen-
eration, Action Library, Action Scripting As-
sembly, Integration Tools, and Multi-lingual
(b) Operations & statistics support:
i. Workflow Logs (Event log proposition) Eval-
uates the existence of WfMS logs storing
events occurring during process execution.
Activities are traceable, meaning that the sys-
ICEIS 2007 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
tem should in one way or another keep track
of ongoing and past executions ;
ii. Reporting monitor proposition All features
that facilitate operation of the server, and col-
lection and interpretation of statistics on case
processing, including tools provided to min-
imize the cost of communications and work-
station administration: Recovery and Restart,
Statistics Recording, Operation Archiving,
Statistics Processing, and Home Work.
3. Contextual Criteria:
(a) Applicative architecture The engine is well
adapted to applications like e-government, e-
commerce, SCM (Supply Chain Management),
CRM (Custumer Relation Management), KM
(Knowledge Management), QM (Quality Man-
agement), GIS (Geographical Information Sys-
tem), etc ;
(b) Technical architecture:
i. Adopted standard WfMC, OMG, IETF, (vi-
sion: BPMI, SOA, WARIA) ;
ii. Adopted model Workflow patterns
(Van Der
Aalst et al., 2003), Petri Nets, Graph theory,
process algebra, PERT, Gantt, BPEL, etc ;
iii. Transactional model During the Workflow
execution, an activity can pass through sev-
eral stages defined as activity states (aborted,
failed and completed). The transactional prop-
erties of an activity depend on the set of its
internal states transitions ;
iv. Event log model Richness of the log (in terms
of information it contains), the log follows a
standard format such as WfMC Audit Trail,
(c) Licensing and Affiliation:
i. Incubator/Initiative OBJECT WEB,
APACHE, etc ;
ii. License APACHE, MIT, IBM, LGPL, GPL,
iii. Relations and Networking (Historical rela-
tions with other workflow engines) Links with
other open source or commercial workflow
engines ;
iv. Web Site accessibility and richness ab-
sent/not reliable/not referenced, up to date, re-
liable/rich, etc.
Workflow patterns : www.workflowpatterns.com
3.2 Workflow Engines Comparison Key
Performance Indicators Model
We can divide the presented criteria in two categories:
those one may evaluate through a mark and those
which are contextual and less subject to an effective
mark. For example, what should mean a mark af-
fected to Licencing and Affiliation? We consider that
contextual criteria have not to be marked while exe-
cution properties and vision criteria have to be. Each
high level criteria is seen as a hierarchical marked
criterion that aggregates the set of all its submarked
criterion marks trhough a criterion formula (in the
same vain of multidimensional database roll-up ag-
gregation operation). In the following, aggregation
formulas of each hierarchical marked criterion given
at section 3.1 will be presented and explained.
The criterion mark of a hierarchical marked cri-
terion is computed as the uniform average of its sub
marked criterion (which means that each atomic sub
marked criterion has the same weigth - e.g. each
Executability marked sub criterion has the same
with 12 the number of Executability
marked sub criteria, and each Vision marked sub cri-
terion has the same weigth
with 10 the number of
Vision marked sub criteria). For formulas simplicity,
each marked criterion name will represent, by lan-
guage abuse, its evaluation given floating mark (e.g.
Executability(w W FE) denotes Executability cri-
terion mark of the WFE o. For simple visualisation
tuning, h
will denote a 2D (Executabilty × Vision)
space homothety transformation scale, and (t
, t
will denote a 2D space origin translation.
1. Executability criterion mark is the uniform aver-
age of 2-sub-criteria of API & GUI support, 5-
sub-criteria of Execution Properties, and 5-sub-
criteria of Software Quality.
Executability(w W FE) =
2 API & GU I support +5 Execution Properties +5 So f tware Quality
)(w) h
(a) API & GUI support(w WF E) =
Activity Programming + Internet Support
(b) Execution Properties(w W FE) =
T hroughput Rates + Distribution + Dynamic Changes + Procedure De f inition
+ (
Readytouse agent s
(c) So f tware Quality(w W FE) =
Adaptability + Maintainability + Reusability + Rel iability + Testability
2. Vision criterion mark is the uniform average of 8-
sub-criteria of Model Richness, and 2-sub-criteria
of Operations & statistics support.
Vision(w W FE) =
8 Model Richness + 2 Oper ations & statistics su pport
)(w) h
) t
(a) Mod el Richness(w W FE) =
Procedure Power + Standard s compl iance + Data f low + Control f low
WFESelector - A Tool for Comparing and Selecting Workflow Engines
+ (
Transactional F low + Dispatching & Organization Re present ation
+ (
Enter prise Application Integration + Activity De f inition
(b) Operations & statistics support(w W FE) =
Work f low Logs + Reporting monitor proposition
3.3 Workflow Engines Comparison
Now that we have presented the criteria and their eval-
uation we can present our workflow engines com-
parison metamodel which is composed of 6 meta-
concepts, as shown in figure 2):
Figure 2: WFESelector reporting Metamodel.
WFE meta-concept: represents a workflow engine
entity with its WF E ID, and WFE NAME ;
CRITERION meta-concept: represents an ab-
stract workflow engine criterion entity with
TERION DESCRIPTION, and given evaluation
represents a concrete workflow engine textual
criterion entity that describes the evaluation result
of WFE according to a contextual property ;
meta-concept: represents a hierarchical concrete
workflow engine contextual criterion entity that is
entities ;
MARKED CRITERION meta-concept: repre-
sents a concrete workflow engine criterion en-
tity with its given evaluation floating CRITE-
meta-concept: represents a hierarchical con-
crete workflow engine marked criterion
entity that is composed of many MAR-
KED CRITERION entities. This hierarchy
aggregates the set of all its SUB MAR-
CRITERION FORMULA (in the same vain of
multidimensional database roll-up aggregation
4.1 Workflow Engines Comparison
Model Implementation:
Figure 3 presents the applicative architecture of WFE-
Selector of four layers.
Figure 3: Applicative architecture of WFESelector.
The evaluation database layer manages a rela-
tional database that stores for each studied workflow
engine its evaluation information (i.e. the set of con-
textual and marked criteria). Those WFE evaluation
marks are based upon studying their related research
ICEIS 2007 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
papers, marketing white papers, and slides, setting up
and testing technically all engines according to a com-
plete case study process (in our case, the case study
was based on ISO 9002 preventive, and corrective ac-
tions circulation process). Evaluation of a WFE is
achieved by giving subjective marks: for each WFE,
and CRITERION a floating evaluation MARK is given
from 1 to 5 (1 is the worst mark, and 5 is the best
mark). The Data Mart layer manages a multidimen-
tional hypercube that stores for each studied workflow
engine its aggregated marks and key performance in-
dicators on the basis of the evaluation database in-
formation. The Querying engine layer provides an
API to query relevantly either the evaluation database
and the data mart. The Reporting Dashboard layer
proposes synthetic visual reports on workflow engines
key performane indicators.
WFESelector user, wanting to select a WFE ac-
cording to specific requirements, has, in fact, two pos-
sible scenarios : (S1) to select some WFE among
those present in WFESelector evaluation database in
order to classify them function of their marked critera
and sub-criteria (through a reporting dashboard), or
(S2) directely to express a multi-criteria query based
on the hierarchical criteria model and to obtain a list
of classified WFE (through a querying engine).
As a first validation step, we have experimented
our WFESelector prototype on a set of open source
workflow engines. Nowadays, WFESelector gath-
ers a database of 35 WFE (experimentation sample).
Without loosing in generality, we present an execu-
tion experiment of WFESelector execution scenario
(S1) in which the user selects 9 significant WFE (anal-
ysis sample) among WFESelector evaluated WFE.
The following figures 4 and 5, and table classify
graphically, and describe textually those queried 9
WFE in detail.
WFESelector scenario execution experiment re-
sults informs that generally, priorities taken into ac-
count by open source workflow engines software ed-
itors, are nowadays: (1) API & GUI support is the
most common functionality; then (2) the model rich-
ness, then (3) the execution properties; then (4) soft-
ware quality factors; and finally (5) Operations and
Moreover, WFESelector scenario execution ex-
periment shows that Executability KPI is not gener-
ally dependent of Vision KPI. Four WFE classes are
distinguished: (1) class of WFE whose Executabil-
ity and Vision are correlated (SHARK and jBPM); (2)
class of WFE whose Executability is more important
than Vision (Jfolder and OPEN WFE); WFE whose
Vision is more important than Executability (Bigbross
Bossa, Lenya, and Runa); and (4) (OSWORKFLOW
Figure 4: WFESelector Pivot Table, and 2D results exam-
ples of reporting dashboard GUI.
Figure 5: WFESelector Radar Graph results examples of
reporting dashboard GUI.
and XFlow) seams to be an isolated class from the
the other 8 WFE. The user can then conclude from
his/her first WFESelector scenario use that SHARK
and jBPM are in the top level distinction, and that
OSWORKFLOW and XFlow are apparently atypical
within the 9 WFE that the user selected as analysis
WFESelector - A Tool for Comparing and Selecting Workflow Engines
This paper has presented our workflow engines com-
parison model for analysing, classifying, compar-
ing, and selecting workflow engines according to
specific requirements. The model has been imple-
mented within WFESelector prototype. Our work-
flow engines comparison model has been experi-
mented upon a set of 35 open source workflow en-
gines, and has revealed preliminary criteria based
classifications among open source workflow engines.
Our ongoing work involves the integration of a
thin time dimension into the WFESelector Data Mart
in order to track the evolution of WFE. Another ac-
tual outlook is related to the integration of Data min-
ing within WFESelector reporting process. For ex-
ample, WFESelector should help in automatic selec-
tion of evaluation weigths for roll-up operation in-
stead of taking uniform average. We also aim to in-
tegrate WFESelector within a broader Workflow en-
gines portfolio management platform.
In summary we believe that, once the research and
development work on the aspects described above has
been completed, this approach will result in a com-
prehensive platform that can substantially reduce (i)
WFE presenting and understanding effort both for
editors and customers, and (ii) WFE selection effort
and therefore foster the widespread adoption of either
open source or commercial workflow technology.
The author thanks all 2006 and 2007 ENSIAS engi-
neers that participated with their experimental devel-
opments, and evaluations in WFESelector Project.
Apache Lenya. http://lenya.apache.org.
Bigbross Bossa. http://www.bigbross.com/bossa.
Enhydra Shark. http://www.enhydra.org/workflow/shark.
jBPM. http://www.jbpm.org.
JFolder. http://www.jfolder.com.
OPEN WFE. http://web.openwfe.org/display/openwfe/Home.
OpenSymphony OSWorkflow.
Runa. http://wf.runa.ru.
Waria workflow comparative study.
XFlow. http://xflow.sourceforge.net.
ına, K., Benali, K., and Godart, C. (2006). DISCOBOLE:
A service Architecture for Interconnecting Workflow
Processes. Computers in Industry - Special issue
on Collaborative Environments for Concurrent Engi-
neering, Elsevier Science Publisher, pages 768–777.
Bernstein, A., Dellarocas, C., and Klein, M. (1999). To-
wards adaptive workflow systems: Cscw-98 work-
shop report. SIGGROUP Bull., 20(2):54–56.
Gaaloul, W., Ba
ına, K., and Godart, C. (2005). Towards
Mining Structural Workflow Patterns. In Andersen,
K. V., Debenham, J. K., and Wagner, R., editors, 16th
International Conference on Database and Expert
Systems Applications (DEXA’05), volume 3588, pages
24–33, Copenhagen, Denmark. Springer-Verlag.
Gaaloul, W. and Godart, C. (2005). Mining workflow re-
covery from event based logs. In van der Aalst, W.
M. P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., and Curbera, F., ed-
itors, Business Process Management, volume 3649,
pages 169–185.
Lei, K. and Singh, M. (1997). A comparison of workflow
M. Rosemann, M. and zur Muehlen, M. (1998). Evaluation
of Workflow Management Systems - a Meta Model
Approach. Australian Journal of Information Systems,
McCall, J., Richards, P., and Walters, G. (1977). Factors of
software quality. NTIS, 3.
Reichert, M. and Dadam, P. (1997). A Framework for
Dynamic Changes in Workflow Management Sys-
tems. In Wagner, R., editor, 8th International Work-
shop on Database and Expert Systems Applications
(DEXA’97), pages 42–48, Toulouse, France. IEEE
Computer Society Press.
Russell, N., van der Aalst, W. M. P., ter Hofstede, A.
H. M., and Edmond, D. (2005). Workflow resource
patterns: Identification, representation and tool sup-
port. In CAiSE, pages 216–232.
Stoilova, K. and Stoilov, T. (2006). Comparison of work-
flow software products. In International Conference
on Computer Systems and Technologies, CompSys-
Van Der Aalst, W. M. P., Ter Hofstede, A. H. M., Kie-
puszewski, B., and Barros, A. P. (2003). Workflow
patterns. Distrib. Parallel Databases, 14(1):5–51.
Yu, J. and Buyya, R. (2005). A taxonomy of scientific work-
flow systems for grid computing. SIGMOD Record,
ICEIS 2007 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
WFE NAME License Pros & Cons
Bossa (Big, )
GPL Light weigth easy to use Petri Nets based WFE, manages user roles over activities. Log file contains
information about persistent progression status that is reloaded at each transition
Shark (Enh, )
(Object Web) LGPL has an XPDL based process definition language, has a Wf-XML based process interface, is a model driven
engine, is a mature modelling, enactement and administration engine, has a reliable role management.
Possesses good process instance tracking, and visualisation. Has many graphical modelers (e.g. Jawe,
Together), wrappers (e.g. Swish), is integrated by OFBiz, and can be deployed within Pentaho. Has No
transactional properties handled in the process model
jBPM (JBP, ) (Object Web) LGPL Eclipse plugin, has a rich API, enables process application extensibily Model driven engine, describes
rigorously graphically business processes and origanisation roles (Graph Oriented Programming). Enables
process definition to be modified at runtime, with logging process definiton versions
Jfolder (Jfo, ) LPDL has a rich API, Web Base engine, JBOSS based, has no procedure programming environment, is a true
model driven engine. No event logs, no reporting tools
Lenya (Apa, ) (Apache)Apache
Software License
is a CMS specific WFE, is XML based, integrates Cocoon framework, and is supported by Apache Foun-
dation with an Apache License. Lenya dataflow enables XML attachment to be created, modified, and
removed. Lenya is web oriented, attached documents status can be verified, at each instant. Lenya users
can be notified by e-mail for an eventual document validation. Lenya has a scheduler providing a log of
achieved tasks on documents with their relative begining and ending dates
(OPE, )
BSD OMG Compliant with a majority of Wf patterns (Van Der Aalst et al., 2003). stores its work data either
in XML files or in relational databases. Workflow Participant roles are handled as accounts within LDAP
repository. Manages suitably workitems dispatching between participants
(OSW, )
Software License
OMG compliant, State Machine based Model, several interface mechanisms (SOAP, EJB, Java classes).
Events Journal can be extracted, but no operation can be processed over those events. The Web version is
somehow complex to interact with. Automatic Process centered, and coded driven process definition and
Runa (Run, ) is cross-platform end user workflow environment for JBPM, is web oriented, has an interesting user group
(swimlane) based task assignment
XFlow (XFl, ) (Apache)Apache
Software License
based on JBoss, may be used through a Web Service directely via JMS, integrates Log4j. Is extensible and
eases application integration. Provides flexibility in: designing process workflow, reconfiguring processes,
and defining routing rules. Provides visibility into bottlenecks in a process workflow. Eases gathering
statistics on the performance of participants in a process workflow. Has no procedure programming envi-
ronnement, and is mainly coded driven
WFESelector - A Tool for Comparing and Selecting Workflow Engines