Kissflow vs. ProcessMaker

Overview

ProcessMaker is used by process analysts and business process management die-hards. However, its design layout and notation style make it a poor choice for non-BPM users.

Kissflow and ProcessMaker share a lot of functionality, but the key areas of difference are:

• The pricing models
• The notation used for process modelling
• Overall design and layout

Similarities

Both ProcessMaker and Kissflow enable you to create complex processes that can function throughout your organization. The capabilities of both products when it comes to form and workflow design are impressive.

Both options have native mobile apps for Android and iOS.

Both also have reporting features. ProcessMaker does bring a little more to the table when it comes to statistics that are central to the BPM practice such as Employee Efficiency Index and Cost or Savings calculators, but using these reports requires a lot of know-how. ProcessMaker also lets you create ‘Dashlets’ which work a bit like new graphs and tables on Google Analytics.

Documentation is very strong for both products. Kissflow offers instant chat, video documentation, webinars, and support by email and phone. ProcessMaker offers all of the same features, but limits phone support to its higher level plans.

ProcessMaker gives you seven process templates to start out. Kissflow offers 48 pre-built workflows.

Both options also provide integration tools. ProcessMaker provides RESTful APIs just like Kissflow and even has some Gmail integrations that come with their premium plans.

Key Differences

Pricing Model

The first major difference between the two is that ProcessMaker offers a free open-source version of its software. The download must be hosted on-premise and is a pretty stripped-down version of the software with no support. To really take advantage of the open-source feature, you would want to have some talented programmers who can take the basic version and build on top of it, or you will quickly run into roadblocks. Kissflow doesn’t offer any open-source options.

ProcessMaker also offers a paid cloud version. The “Standard” package has unlimited users, but starts at a hefty $1,000 a month, which would wipe out any smaller businesses interested in using it to get into automation. And this price doesn’t include things like Office 365 SSO, SLA management, and many other bpm features that come as a default package in Kissflow. So, ProcessMaker isn’t really even an option to think about until you get above 150 users.

Process Design

ProcessMaker uses BPMN 2.0 notation which is a standard way that BPM professionals discuss and diagram processes. This is a great if you already are familiar with BPMN 2.0 or you just love to learn very technical ways to represent things.

Kissflow has a human-centric approach. This means that when someone not familiar with BPM sits down to map out a process, they draw a sequential line of tasks that need to be completed and assign names to the tasks. A process created in Kissflow Workflow looks much more like this ‘back-of-the-napkin’ approach.

For example, here’s an employee onboarding process made with BPMN 2.0:

And here’s what it looks like in Kissflow:

A human-centric design is much better when you want department heads and managers who are unfamiliar with BPM to create their own processes. BPMN 2.0 is better if your system will be maintained only by those who already know BPMN 2.0 and are more comfortable with it.

Overall Design and Layout

When it comes to UI, there isn’t much of a competition. ProcessMaker still uses very old design models that make the software seem out-of-date while Kissflow uses Material Design principles for a much more modern look and feel.

Here’s how the dashboards look in both:

ProcessMaker vs. Kissflow

If you are checking out an alternative to ProcessMaker, and you want something more modern that doesn’t require you to know BPMN 2.0, check Kissflow Workflow out. It’s a great ProcessMaker alternative for someone who wants a lower barrier to entry.

Disclaimer: All registered trade marks, company names and brand names used on this website are the property of their respective owners.