Workflow users whose applications make use principally of the Microsoft technology stack often consider open source Java workflow products at the same time they consider .NET-based FlowWright. There are 2 main reasons that most Microsoft users end up choosing FlowWright over free open source Java products.
1. Ease of integration, maintenance, and implementation: While it is possible to communicate with java products through REST APIs or other mechanisms, translations between objects that are coded in different platforms are typically difficult to implement and maintain (for example, in serializing objects.) In addition, functions don't match up consistently (or sometimes at all) between Java and Microsoft technology stacks - integration between Microsoft and Java typically requires compromises, sometimes significant compromises. On the other hand, developing entirely in .NET ensures straightforward implementation and integration - meaning that development takes less time and maintenance is far easier. Working within a single technology stack has obvious advantages, and the Microsoft stack has technical advantages over Java.
2. Performance: Java runs on interpreted byte code while .NET runs on compiled machine code. FlowWright provides both a .NET and a REST API. Our .NET API executes compiled code, which is much faster than interpreted java code and much more secure. FlowWright's REST API is a wrapper around our .NET API, and gives you access to top performance via both APIs.
The above graph shows time (y-axis = seconds) taken to process workflow instances (x-axis = # of instances) using the popular open source Java engine JVPM vs. the FlowWright engine. As you can see above, FlowWright workflow processing performance compares extremely well to Java-based workflow processing (as you would expect due to the nature of Java code execution.)
FlowWright has some customers that run on other platforms such as Java, PHP, NodeJS and others, but for functionality and performance reasons they cross into the Microsoft technology stack to use FlowWright.
FlowWright takes a lot less time to process (and less time to implement) thanJava engines, but don't take our word for it. Hear what our customers have to say!
Schedule a demo of FlowWright today to learn more!