whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Workflow Management

ProcessMaker

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 ProcessMaker Inc. · www.processmaker.com

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

Link to this page

ProcessMaker: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai ProcessMaker: 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.

ProcessMaker at a glance

Vendor
ProcessMaker Inc.
Headquarters
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
Data hosting
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
Free plan
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates ProcessMaker 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. ProcessMaker — a workflow management platform whose captured pages state it is now part of Decisions — is strongest where its documentation is deepest: process design, clustering at 6-7, and hosting and portability, also 6-7, built on a BPMN 2.0 modeler with automatic validation during design and an open-source edition that installs on-premises against published requirements. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 4 Nov 2026. all sources

ProcessMaker alternatives, European ones first →

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

The Data Protection Officer

Weighted verdict

Reads every workflow as a chain of transfers. Asks where the execution log keeps its copy of the payload and for how long, which subprocessors and AI model providers a step sends data to, whether payloads can be masked, and what the approval trail records about employees before the works council asks.

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

Scored by The Data Protection Officer

Panel median The Data Protection Officer 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 Data Protection Officer
Process design, forms & approvals 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Connectors, API & on-premise reach 3 of 5 3 of 5
Execution, error handling & monitoring 2 of 5 2 of 5
Governance, credentials & audit trail 2.5 of 5 3 of 5
Hosting options & portability 3.5 of 5 3.5 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 — No human steps at all: neither forms nor approval steps, only machine-to-machine automation.

3 — A visual builder with branching and a simple approval or form step.

5 — A visual designer with conditions and parallel paths, forms and approval steps assigned to roles or groups, and deadlines or reminders for open tasks.

8 — BPMN 2.0 modelling or an equivalent documented notation, versions of a process kept with running instances on their original version, 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 Data Protection Officer

The BPMN 2.0 modeler auto-validates as you work, with boundary timer, error, signal, conditional and message events and multi-instance loops with FEEL exit conditions; tasks assign to a user, group, previous assignee or case starter, carry due times with reminders on assignment and due, manager escalation, reassignment and self-service queues, and land in a task inbox with optional email actions. We found no public information on running instances keeping their original process version, substitutes, multi-stage four-eyes approvals or a simulation mode, which keeps it below the top band. 2 3 7

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 catalogue of connectors to common SaaS tools, or webhooks and an HTTP step to call other systems.

5 — Named connectors with their triggers and actions documented, including Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace, a generic HTTP/REST step with inbound webhooks, and an API to start or query workflows.

8 — Connectors to an ERP or accounting system common in DACH (e.g. SAP, DATEV, Microsoft Dynamics), 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, 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 Data Protection Officer

Named connectors are documented by purpose — electronic signing, intelligent document processing, PDF generation, Slack and email dispatch and email-triggered actions — and the generic data connector reaches REST APIs and SOAP services via WSDL with all common methods, with connectors generatable by importing API documentation and a broad documented REST API for processes, requests, tasks and scripts. We found no public information on connectors to ERP or accounting systems common in DACH, an inbound webhook step, or who maintains each connector. 4 5 6 10

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 runs unattended: the product executes no automated workflows whose runs could fail or be monitored.

3 — Failed runs marked with a notification, and a history of recent executions.

5 — Automatic retries or an error path, an execution log with input and output per step, failure alerts by email or chat, and runtime or rate limits documented.

8 — Configurable retries with back-off and replay of a failed run from the failing step, 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 Data Protection Officer

Exception handling is designed into the model through the boundary events, a script's execution response can be retrieved by key after it runs, and the platform names a Redis-backed queue, due notifications and a Slack notification connector. We found no public information on automatic retries, replay of failed runs, per-step execution logs with their inputs and outputs, failure alerting, runtime or rate limits, or a status page. 2 6 10

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 (BetrVG § 87 (1) 6), so what the trail captures matters to a works council.

0 — No user management: one account per person or one shared login, with no team workspace.

3 — Admin and member roles with shared team folders or workspaces.

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

8 — Separate development, test and production environments with a publishing approval, SCIM provisioning, external secret stores supported, payload redaction or logging 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 Data Protection Officer

Permissions are granular and cumulative across processes and the platform, sensitive values sit in environment variables that designers never see, client secrets are fully masked in the interface, and a security-logs API module plus version history for processes, scripts and screens gives change traceability — though the on-premises edition ships with default admin credentials an operator must change, and a forwarded email action is recorded as the original assignee unless require-login is enabled. We found no public information on single sign-on, separate environments with a publishing approval, external secret stores, payload redaction, configurable execution-data retention or what the trail records about individual users. 2 7 8 10

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 — Workflows cannot be exported in any form and live only in the vendor's cloud.

3 — Cloud hosting with the region named, and workflows exportable as a file the same product can import.

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

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 Data Protection Officer

A documented on-premises open-source edition with full system requirements — Ubuntu, Docker, MySQL, Redis, NGINX, PHP and Node — means the engine can run on the customer's own servers, and process export produces a BPMN 2.0-compliant JSON file carrying the model, scripts, screens in original and translated languages, environment variables and permissions, password-protected and encrypted when it contains sensitive assets, importable into the same or later versions, with an API to read definitions and requests. We found no public information on versioning definitions in Git, the engine's licence terms, or a documented migration path between cloud and self-hosted. 9 10

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 — Proven non-EU throughout: non-EU vendor and contracting entity, execution outside the EU, and no data processing agreement offered.

3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement exist, while an EU contracting entity and EU execution are not shown, or an EU region is an option under a non-EU contracting entity.

5 — EU execution and log storage stated (as standard or selectable) and an EU contracting entity or EU representative, with a data processing agreement; parts of the chain such as AI steps, support access or telemetry may run outside the EU.

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 Data Protection Officer not rated — no public information

We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, where workflows execute or where execution logs with their payload copies are stored, the subprocessors or AI model providers behind the first- and third-party agents and the Smart Extract service, or a data processing agreement; the vendor page and on-premises documentation name these services without locations. The on-premises edition exists, but the captured pages do not show whether it calls home, so no sovereignty dimension is proven either way. 1 8 10

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 public "from" price or one tier priced, with the rest on request.

5 — Prices public for each tier with the billing period, the billing unit named and the allowance per tier given.

8 — Every tier priced publicly with its unit defined (what counts as one task or execution), 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 Data Protection Officer not rated — no public information

We found no public information on prices, the billing unit, tier allowances or overages, or the cost of the on-premises edition; the captured vendor page names mid-market and enterprise offerings without any figures. 1

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 6 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Hosting location Not determined — uncited Report an error
Hosting options Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Open source Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data processing agreement Not determined — uncited Report an error
Transfer impact assessment Not determined — uncited Report an error

Questions about ProcessMaker

Is ProcessMaker European?

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

Where does ProcessMaker store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.

Does ProcessMaker have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.

What are the best alternatives to ProcessMaker?

As of 4 Nov 2026, the panel rates n8n (3.5/5), Frends (3/5) and Appian (3/5) highest among the other 22 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: ProcessMaker 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 ProcessMaker? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (10)

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

  1. 1 Vendor page www.processmaker.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Process design, forms & approvals — found from sitemap docs.processmaker.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Process design, forms & approvals — found from sitemap docs.processmaker.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Connectors, API & on-premise reach — found from sitemap docs.processmaker.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Connectors, API & on-premise reach — found from sitemap docs.processmaker.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Execution, error handling & monitoring — found from sitemap docs.processmaker.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Governance, credentials & audit trail — found from sitemap docs.processmaker.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Governance, credentials & audit trail — found from sitemap docs.processmaker.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Hosting options & portability — found from sitemap docs.processmaker.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Hosting options & portability — found from sitemap docs.processmaker.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →