whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Workflow Management

Bizagi

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by Bizagi Limited · www.bizagi.com

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

Bizagi: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Bizagi: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds. The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.

Bizagi at a glance

Vendor
Bizagi Limited
Headquarters
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
Data hosting
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
Free plan
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates Bizagi 1/5, the mean of 6 judges. Bizagi Limited's workflow management platform shows strong, well-evidenced modelling and governance, and a public record that stops there. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources

Bizagi alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Head of IT

Weighted verdict

Answers for every automation a department builds without asking. Wants SSO, separate test and production, an inventory of workflows with their owners — and an exit: definitions exportable as BPMN or documented JSON, a self-hosted edition, and an engine licence that will still apply in five years.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Head of IT

Panel median The Head of IT This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Head of IT
Process design, forms & approvals 2 of 5 2 of 5
Connectors, API & on-premise reach 0.5 of 5 0.5 of 5
Execution, error handling & monitoring 0.5 of 5 1 of 5
Governance, credentials & audit trail 2.5 of 5 2.5 of 5
Hosting options & portability 0.5 of 5 1 of 5
European sovereignty 0.5 of 5 0.5 of 5

Process design, forms & approvals

How this is scored

Modelling the process people take part in: a visual designer or BPMN, forms, approval steps with roles and substitutes, deadlines and escalation, and versioning of a process that is already running — judged on whether a business owner can change a process without breaking the instances in flight.

0 — Linear trigger-action chains only; no human steps, no forms and no statement on approvals or roles.

3 — A visual builder with branching and a simple approval step, but approvers are named individuals rather than roles, there are no deadlines or escalation, and changing a process has no versioning.

5 — A visual designer with conditions and parallel paths, built-in forms, approval steps assigned to roles or groups, deadlines with reminders, and versions of a process kept with the running instances on their original version.

8 — BPMN 2.0 modelling or an equivalent documented notation, substitutes and escalation chains, multi-stage approvals with four-eyes rules, forms in German with validation and file upload, a task inbox for participants, and a test or simulation mode before publishing.

10 — The process is a governed asset: version history with diff and rollback, migration of running instances to a new version documented, process analytics on cycle time and bottlenecks per step, and the design documented well enough that a business team can maintain it without the vendor.

Report an error

The Head of IT

Bizagi models end-to-end processes in the documented BPMN standard, publishing the element groups — events, activities, gateways, swimlanes with pools and lanes — and Bizagi Studio turns those models into applications with low coding effort. That covers conditions, parallel paths and role lanes, but we found no public information on forms, approval steps with roles and substitutes, deadlines and escalation, or versioning of a process that is already running, so I cannot confirm a business owner can change a live process without breaking the instances in flight. 2

Report an error

Connectors, API & on-premise reach

How this is scored

Reaching the systems a European company actually runs: maintained connectors judged by name rather than count, a generic HTTP and webhook step, custom connectors, and a way to reach systems behind the firewall without opening it.

0 — No connectors beyond email, and no API or webhook step.

3 — A large connector count on a logo wall, with no statement of which actions each supports or who maintains them, and no generic HTTP step.

5 — Named connectors with their triggers and actions documented, including Microsoft 365 and at least one ERP or accounting system common in DACH (e.g. SAP, DATEV, Microsoft Dynamics), a generic HTTP/REST step, inbound webhooks, and a documented API to start and query workflows.

8 — Custom connectors buildable from an OpenAPI description or code, an on-premise agent or self-hosted runner reaching internal databases and file shares, SOAP and database steps, OAuth handled per connection, and connector maintenance ownership (vendor, partner or community) stated.

10 — Integration is engineered: a versioned public API with a deprecation policy, connector changelogs, rate limits per connector published, event-driven triggers rather than polling where the source allows it, and the vendor maintaining the German-market connectors (DATEV, SAP, ELO or d.velop) itself.

Report an error

The Head of IT

The pages name platform modules for process automation and enterprise orchestration, but we found no public information on connectors to Microsoft 365, SAP, DATEV or other DACH systems, on a generic HTTP or webhook step, on a documented API, or on any agent reaching systems behind the firewall. For a company whose systems sit on an internal network, nothing captured lets me judge reach. 2

Report an error

Execution, error handling & monitoring

How this is scored

What happens when a step fails at 3 a.m.: retries, error paths, alerting, an execution history someone can search, limits on runtime and throughput, and a status page that admits incidents.

0 — Nothing stated about failed runs; an error stops the workflow silently.

3 — Failed runs are marked and an email is sent, but retries are manual, execution history is short or undocumented, and runtime and throughput limits are unstated.

5 — Automatic retries with configurable back-off, an error path or error workflow, a searchable execution log with input and output per step, failure alerts by email or chat, and runtime, payload and rate limits documented.

8 — Replay of a failed run from the failing step, idempotency guidance, queueing and concurrency controls, execution history retention stated per plan, monitoring exportable to the customer's own tools, and a public status page with incident history and an uptime commitment.

10 — Operations are designed for production: an SLA with service credits, horizontal scaling or high-availability setup documented for self-hosted installs, dead-letter handling, end-to-end tracing across workflows, and post-incident reports published.

Report an error

The Head of IT

Governance material mentions detailed audit timelines, traceability and usage analytics monitoring, and a customer result cites 99.5% compliance with committed service times, but those are visibility claims rather than failure handling. We found no public information on retries, error paths, alerting, searchable execution history, runtime or throughput limits, or a public status page. 1 3

Report an error

Governance, credentials & audit trail

How this is scored

Keeping automation from becoming shadow IT: roles and permissions, SSO, where connection credentials are stored, separate environments with controlled publishing, an audit trail of changes and approvals, and what the execution log retains of the payload. An approval record is also a record of employees' behaviour, so what the trail captures matters to a works council.

0 — Single-user accounts or one shared login; no roles, no audit log and no statement on credential storage.

3 — Admin and member roles and shared team folders, but credentials are visible to anyone who can edit a workflow, there is no audit log, and execution payloads are kept without a stated period.

5 — Role-based permissions per workflow or folder, SSO via SAML or OIDC, credentials stored encrypted and usable without being revealed, an audit log of workflow changes, and the retention period of execution data stated.

8 — Separate development, test and production environments with a publishing approval, SCIM provisioning, external secret stores supported, payload redaction or log-off per workflow, configurable execution data retention, and the audit trail exportable — with the fields it records about users described.

10 — Governance a works council and an auditor can both sign off: field-level masking of personal data in logs, delegated administration per department, a central inventory of every workflow and connection with its owner, certifications published (ISO 27001 or SOC 2), and documentation of what the platform records about individual users.

Report an error

The Head of IT

Governance is described at three levels — persona-based access and curated component libraries at application level, centralized and federated centres of excellence with audit timelines and traceability, developer profiles by skill, component-level change control, and deployment review with approvals management — which covers role-based permissions and a controlled publishing step. We found no public information on SSO via SAML or OIDC, where connection credentials are stored, SCIM provisioning, execution data retention, or export of the audit trail, and while GDPR compliance is guaranteed, no certification such as ISO 27001 or SOC 2 is published. 3

Report an error

Hosting options & portability

How this is scored

Where the engine runs and whether the workflows can leave: cloud regions, self-hosted or on-premise editions, the licence of the engine, and export of workflow definitions in a format another tool or a later version can read.

0 — Cloud-only with no stated region, and no export of workflow definitions.

3 — Cloud-only with a region named, and an export that produces a proprietary file only the same product can import.

5 — An EU cloud region selectable, workflow definitions exportable as documented JSON or BPMN 2.0, and an API to read definitions and execution history for backup.

8 — A self-hosted or on-premise edition with its system requirements documented, workflow definitions versionable in Git, the engine's licence published, and a documented migration path between cloud and self-hosted in both directions.

10 — The customer owns its automation: an open-source or source-available engine, definitions in an open standard executable elsewhere, air-gapped installation supported, and a stated exit process that hands back definitions, credentials metadata and execution history in documented formats.

Report an error

The Head of IT

Bizagi Modeler is downloadable and a customer testimonial describes process modelling as free, and models use the open BPMN notation — but that concerns the design tool, not the engine. We found no public information on cloud regions, a self-hosted or on-premise edition of the platform, the engine's licence, or export of workflow definitions in a documented format, so the exit path I require is not evidenced. 2

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Who the contracting entity is, where workflows execute and where execution logs with their payload copies are stored, and who the subprocessors are — including the AI model providers behind any AI steps. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline. A self-hosted edition counts only for the data that actually stays on the customer's servers.

0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, execution location unstated, and subprocessors unnamed.

3 — An EU region offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent, or AI steps send data to model providers of unstated location.

5 — EU execution and log storage as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — AI steps, support access, telemetry — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.

8 — EU execution on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published with locations including AI providers, a DPA covering execution payloads, and a self-hosted option that sends no workflow data to the vendor.

10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and every subprocessor, AI steps runnable on European or self-hosted models, certification published, and a self-hosted edition that works without any call home.

Report an error

The Head of IT

No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on the contracting entity's location, where workflows and execution logs with their payloads are stored, or the subprocessor list — including the AI model providers behind the AI classification described in the financial services example. GDPR compliance is guaranteed in the governance material, but that claim does not state where data is processed. 1 3

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

How this is scored

Whether a buyer can compute the monthly cost of their own processes from public pages alone: what the billing unit is (task, operation, execution, run, user or flow) and what counts as one, the allowance per tier, overage prices, and the cost of premium connectors, self-hosting, environments and AI steps.

0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.

3 — A starting price exists, but the billing unit is undefined or what counts as one task or execution is unstated — the invoice is unknowable.

5 — Tier prices public with the billing unit defined and the monthly allowance given, but at least one commonly needed piece (overage, premium connectors, extra environments, self-hosted licence, AI steps) is unpriced.

8 — Every tier priced publicly with its unit, allowance and limits, overage priced per unit, premium connector and add-on prices listed, self-hosted licensing stated, minimum term and VAT treatment given.

10 — Complete price computability: the monthly cost derivable for a given number of workflows, runs and steps per run, with a published calculator or worked examples, every add-on and overage on a public page, and the effect of loops and retries on the count explained.

Report an error

The Head of IT

The only public pricing information is a customer testimonial stating that process modelling is free; we found no public information on paid tiers, the billing unit and what counts as one, monthly allowances, or the cost of connectors, environments and AI steps. The monthly cost of our own processes cannot be computed from what is published. 2

Report an error

Questions about Bizagi

Is Bizagi European?

Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Bizagi is based.

Where does Bizagi store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.

Does Bizagi have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.

What are the best alternatives to Bizagi?

As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Tray.ai (3/5), n8n (3/5) and Camunda (2.5/5) highest among the other 18 Workflow Management products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is n8n (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Bizagi alternatives.

Where this could be wrong

What we left out

A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.

Do you know more about Bizagi? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (3)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor page www.bizagi.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Process design, forms & approvals — found from sitemap www.bizagi.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Governance, credentials & audit trail — found from sitemap www.bizagi.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →