I’ve been thinking about this from a different angle. If we’re investing in building automation workflows and orchestrating AI agents, what if we could recoup some of that investment by selling or licensing those automations to other organizations? The pitch is: build once, sell multiple times, offset your platform costs.
But I’m skeptical about whether this is realistic. Questions I have: who actually buys automation templates from a marketplace? Are the buyer pools big enough to generate meaningful revenue? And realistically, how much work goes into packaging an automation for sale versus just using it internally?
I ask because if the marketplace model doesn’t actually work, then I need to factor full platform costs into my TCO calculation and it changes the financial case against Camunda. But if there’s a real path to offset costs by selling scenarios, that’s a different story. Has anyone actually done this?
I built a few workflows and listed them on a marketplace. Honest answer: yes, people buy them, but it’s not passive income. You’re not building it once and profiting forever.
First time I sold a template for a fairly common workflow—lead qualification automation—I made a few hundred bucks over a few months. Respectable, but not life-changing. The key was that the template solved a real problem that a lot of teams face. If you’re building something too specific to your industry or company, the buyer pool is small.
What I learned: revenue happens when you package something generic enough for others to use but specific enough that it saves them actual time. If you’re selling a basic template that takes anyone 30 minutes to build, no one buys it. If you’re selling something complex but highly customized to your company, the buyer pool is maybe five people.
For offsetting costs, think of it as a bonus, not a plan. If you build an automation that you need internally and it happens to solve problems for others, sell it. Don’t design automations specifically for selling unless that’s your actual business.
The marketplace is real but not a get-rich-quick thing. I’ve sold templates that are mid-complexity automations solving common business problems. An email nurture sequence, a data migration workflow, a report generation process. Those had decent buyer interest.
What sold: workflows that saved people days of work and were difficult enough that they wouldn’t build from scratch themselves.
What didn’t sell: simple workflows that anyone could build in an hour, and highly specialized workflows only 50 companies in the world need.
For your licensing offset question: if you’re building twelve workflows for your own use and maybe two of them have marketplace appeal, that’s realistic revenue. Don’t plan your business around selling templates—it’s a side benefit.
The marketplace works if you’re solving problems that are widespread but non-obvious. A workflow for normalizing data from five different CRMs? A lot of companies need that but don’t know how to build it. A specialized workflow for your unique business process? Probably just you. I’ve seen successful marketplace revenue from automations in mid-complexity range—significant enough that people will pay, not so specialized that the buyer pool is three people. Realistically, at five to ten percent of your workflows might have marketplace appeal. That revenue is real but shouldn’t be your primary financial justification for a platform.
Marketplace economics reward specificity paired with broad applicability. A workflow that handles a problem faced by thousands of companies but that those companies don’t know how to solve themselves—that sells. The challenge is identifying which of your internal automations actually fits that profile. Most organizations won’t find more than a few candidates. For financial planning, treat marketplace revenue as opportunistic upside, not a core revenue stream. It can help, but it shouldn’t drive your ROI model.
Marketplace revenue exists but is contingent. Some templates sell, most dont. Good for extra revenue, unreliable 4 offsetting platform costs in budget planning.
I’ve sold three templates and honestly it surprised me. I built them for internal use—a lead scoring workflow, a customer data cleanup process, and a report distribution automation. Didn’t expect them to have external value.
Turned out, companies across different industries had similar problems. From the first template alone, I’ve made a few grand over the past year. Not enough to justify choosing a platform because of marketplace revenue, but enough that it genuinely offsets platform costs.
The insight is: build what you need first. Your internal automations are usually solving problems that others have too. If they do, package them. You might be surprised.
For your TCS against Camunda, here’s how to think about it: platform cost minus realistic marketplace revenue equals your net investment. Even conservative estimates can move the needle when you’re comparing licensing models. Some teams I know have actually pushed their net cost below zero through marketplace sales, but that’s rare. Most get 10-30% offset, which makes the financial case against Camunda even stronger.