I’ve been asked to evaluate Camunda and IBM BAW for a possible migration, but I’m not a developer—I’m more of a process owner. The idea of having to dig into Java or BPMN XML just to see if our workflows can be rebuilt is intimidating, to say the least. I’ve seen some no-code/low-code builders that promise to let you visually model workflows for both platforms. Has anyone actually used one to map and compare real business processes without writing code? Was it actually possible to get a meaningful side-by-side view, or did you hit a wall when you needed to do something complex? I’d love to hear from others who’ve tried this route—did it save time, or just create more confusion?
You can get pretty far without code. We used latenode’s visual builder to model the same workflow for both baw and camunda. The drag-and-drop made it easy to see how logic mapped over. For complex rules, we had to add a bit of code, but 80% was doable without it. Try it at latenode.com.
We did a similar thing—mapped our approval flow in both platforms using a no-code tool. For basic stuff, it was fast and clear. But as soon as we got to custom integrations or exception handling, we had to involve devs. Still, it gave our process owners a real sense of what’s possible.
I’ve seen teams use no-code tools to demo core scenarios. It’s a good way to get started and flag major gaps early. But you’ll hit limits if your process is highly customized. The key is to use it for discovery, not final migration.
No-code is useful for scoping and first drafts, but expect to need code for the final 20%. We used it to get alignment with business teams before diving into dev. Saved a ton of time on meetings and rework.
In our experience, visual tools are great for mapping out the main flow and getting feedback from non-technical stakeholders. We used a no-code builder to recreate our core order process in both Camunda and IBM BAW, and it helped everyone see the big picture and identify differences in user experience and integration points. For complex logic or custom integrations, we still needed to write some code, but the visual mapping made the gaps obvious early. It’s a practical way to start a migration discussion, but not a full replacement for technical vetting. Would be interested to hear if anyone else went all the way to production without touching code.
Visual workflow builders are a pragmatic tool for platform evaluation, especially for process owners. We used one to compare how Camunda and IBM BAW handled our core business scenarios—order processing, case management, approvals. For standard patterns, the mapping was straightforward, and the visual side-by-side helped communicate differences to leadership. When we hit advanced use cases—conditional logic, complex integrations, exception handling—we needed developer input, but the no-code approach got us 80% of the way. The real value is in clarifying requirements and expectations before diving into technical development. It’s not a silver bullet, but it’s a practical way to start a migration conversation. How do others balance visual modeling with technical validation?
visual tools r good for basics. but u end up needing code for the hard bits. still, saves time.
start with no-code to map main flows. spot gaps early. defer code for edge cases.