Automation Integration · head to head
Activiti vs Mozilla Firefox

Activiti
Automation Integration
Apache 2.0 BPMN engine under Hyland, from which Flowable and Camunda were forked
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -

Mozilla Firefox
Technology
An independent web browser with its own rendering engine, funded almost entirely by search placement deals.
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
The short version
- Each has a real cost: Activiti the last stable release was 8.2.0 in January 2024, and while release candidate builds continue, a two-year gap between stable versions is a real risk signal for a production dependency.; Mozilla Firefox roughly 85 per cent of Mozilla's revenue comes from search default placement deals, overwhelmingly with Google, so the organisation that competes with Chrome depends on Chrome's owner for its funding and any renegotiation lands on Firefox's engineering budget within a quarter.
- They diverge on capability: Activiti covers BPMN 2.0 engine, Mozilla Firefox covers Gecko engine.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Activiti and Mozilla Firefox actually diverge.
| Attribute | Activiti | Mozilla Firefox |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Open source, no licence fee | Unknown |
| Platforms | Linux, Windows, Docker, Kubernetes | Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android |
| Category | Automation Integration | Technology |
| Founded | Unknown | 2004 |
Identical on both: starting price (Free), free tier (Yes), user rating (Not yet rated).
What each one covers
Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.
Only in Activiti
- BPMN 2.0 engine
- Activiti Cloud
- Modeler
- Java and REST APIs
- Pluggable persistence
- Identity integration
Only in Mozilla Firefox
- Gecko engine
- Full webRequest blocking
- Total Cookie Protection
- Container tabs
- Extended Support Release
- policies.json and ADMX
- Built-in developer tools
- Firefox Sync
What people use each for
The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.
Activiti
- An Alfresco or Hyland content services deployment where Activiti is already the embedded workflow enginenot Mozilla Firefox
- A Java application that needs to embed a BPMN engine as a library under a permissive licencenot Mozilla Firefox
- An organisation that has ruled out Camunda 8 on licence grounds and needs an Apache 2.0 alternativenot Mozilla Firefox
- Document-centric approval workflows where the process engine sits inside the content management stack rather than beside itnot Mozilla Firefox
Mozilla Firefox
- Web development where you need to test against a non-Chromium engine before shipping, because Chromium-only testing hides real bugsnot Activiti
- Users who require a full-strength content blocker, which Chrome's Manifest V3 no longer permitsnot Activiti
- Managed fleets that need a browser on a slow release cadence with Group Policy control, using the ESR channelnot Activiti
- Handling several accounts on the same service at once through container tabs, without separate profiles or private windowsnot Activiti
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
Activiti
- The last stable release was 8.2.0 in January 2024, and while release candidate builds continue, a two-year gap between stable versions is a real risk signal for a production dependency.
- Both Camunda and Flowable forked away and took large parts of the contributor base with them, so the community, tutorials and third-party tooling around Activiti are much thinner than around either fork.
- Commercial support is only realistically available by buying Hyland Alfresco subscriptions, so there is no way to pay for Activiti support on its own.
- Activiti Cloud imposes a distributed architecture of several Spring Boot services plus Keycloak, which is heavy for teams who simply wanted an embeddable engine.
- Documentation is dated and partly split between old Alfresco sites and Hyland Connect, and the transition between Activiti 6, 7 and 8 architectures makes much of the older material actively misleading.
Mozilla Firefox
- Roughly 85 per cent of Mozilla's revenue comes from search default placement deals, overwhelmingly with Google, so the organisation that competes with Chrome depends on Chrome's owner for its funding and any renegotiation lands on Firefox's engineering budget within a quarter.
- Desktop market share sits at a few per cent, so commercial sites are tested against Chrome and Safari and a Firefox-only rendering or WebRTC bug is triaged as low priority by the site owner, leaving you with the workaround.
- On iOS and iPadOS the browser is a WebKit shell required by Apple's rules, so it delivers the interface and Sync but none of the engine, extension or tracking-protection behaviour that make Firefox worth choosing on desktop.
- Mozilla declines to implement several hardware-facing APIs on principle, including WebUSB, WebSerial, Web Bluetooth and WebHID, so a web application that talks to a device simply does not run and no configuration flag changes that.
- Enterprise management is limited to policies.json and ADMX templates; there is no first-party equivalent of Chrome Browser Cloud Management, so fleet-wide reporting on versions and extensions requires third-party tooling you have to buy or build.
- Mozilla repeatedly ships decisions its own user base objects to, such as enabling Privacy Preserving Attribution by default and the 2025 Terms of Use rewrite, and reversals arrive after the news cycle, so deploying it on a privacy argument means owning the communications work each time.
Pricing, plan by plan
Activiti
Free- ActivitiFree
- Apache 2.0 licence
- Embeddable Java library or Activiti Cloud services
- No usage limits
Mozilla Firefox
FreeNo published plan breakdown. See the Mozilla Firefox review.
Which should you pick?
Choose Activiti if
- You need bpmn 2.0 engine.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Linux, Windows, Docker, Kubernetes.
- You also want activiti cloud.
Choose Mozilla Firefox if
- You need gecko engine.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android.
- You also want full webrequest blocking.
Questions people ask
- Is Activiti or Mozilla Firefox better?
- Neither clearly leads. Activiti starts at Free and Mozilla Firefox at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, Activiti or Mozilla Firefox?
- Activiti starts at Free and Mozilla Firefox at Free.
- Does Activiti or Mozilla Firefox run on more platforms?
- Activiti runs on Linux, Windows, Docker, Kubernetes. Mozilla Firefox runs on Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android.
- Can I use Activiti for free?
- Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
- What is Activiti best used for?
- Activiti is most often used for an alfresco or hyland content services deployment where activiti is already the embedded workflow engine, a java application that needs to embed a bpmn engine as a library under a permissive licence, an organisation that has ruled out camunda 8 on licence grounds and needs an apache 2.0 alternative, document-centric approval workflows where the process engine sits inside the content management stack rather than beside it. Of those, an alfresco or hyland content services deployment where activiti is already the embedded workflow engine and a java application that needs to embed a bpmn engine as a library under a permissive licence are not what Mozilla Firefox is typically brought in for.
- What can Activiti do that Mozilla Firefox cannot?
- Activiti covers BPMN 2.0 engine, Activiti Cloud, Modeler, Java and REST APIs. Mozilla Firefox covers Gecko engine, Full webRequest blocking, Total Cookie Protection, Container tabs.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
Activiti: Is Activiti still maintained?
Yes, Hyland continues to publish builds, but the last stable release was 8.2.0 in January 2024.
Mozilla Firefox: Does uBlock Origin still work on Firefox?
Yes. Firefox has kept the blocking webRequest API that Chrome removed with Manifest V3, so uBlock Origin runs with its full rule set rather than the cut-down Lite version Chrome requires.
Activiti: What is its relationship to Camunda and Flowable?
Both are forks of Activiti: Camunda in 2013 and Flowable in 2016, when core developers left Alfresco.
Mozilla Firefox: Is Firefox on iPhone the same browser?
No. Apple's platform rules require it to use WebKit, so on iOS and iPadOS you get Firefox's interface, Sync and bookmarks on top of Safari's engine. The privacy and extension behaviour are not the same.
Activiti: What licence is it?
Apache 2.0, which distinguishes it from Camunda 8’s source-available licence.
Mozilla Firefox: How is Mozilla funded, and does that matter?
Mainly by payments for making a search engine the default, with Google as the dominant payer. It matters because it is a single-source dependency on a direct competitor, and it has been the subject of antitrust litigation whose outcome Mozilla does not control.
Activiti: Should I choose Activiti for a new project?
Only if the Apache licence or an existing Alfresco deployment is decisive. Flowable and Camunda have far larger ecosystems.
Mozilla Firefox: Can I manage it across a company fleet?
Yes, through policies.json or Windows Group Policy with the ADMX templates, and the ESR channel gives you a roughly yearly major version instead of four-weekly. There is no first-party cloud management console, so reporting needs other tooling.
Mozilla Firefox: Will every site work in it?
Most will. The exceptions cluster around sites tested only in Chrome, legacy enterprise applications, and anything using WebUSB, WebSerial, Web Bluetooth or WebHID, which Firefox does not implement at all.
Related pages
More on Mozilla Firefox
Other head to heads
- Activiti vs n8n
- Activiti vs Temporal
- Activiti vs Flowable
- Activiti vs jBPM
- Activiti vs Camunda
- Activiti vs Nango
- Activiti vs Kogito
- Activiti vs Airbyte
- Activiti vs Windmill
- Activiti vs Meltano
- Activiti vs Zapier
- Activiti vs Microsoft Power Automate
- Activiti vs Census
- Activiti vs Decodable
- Activiti vs Dify
- Activiti vs Flowise
- Activiti vs Google Chrome
- Activiti vs Microsoft Edge
- Activiti vs Safari
- Activiti vs Jenkins
- Activiti vs Plane
- Activiti vs Vim
- Activiti vs Kubernetes
- Activiti vs PostHog
- Activiti vs GitHub
- Activiti vs Neovim
- Activiti vs Eclipse
- Activiti vs CloudAMQP
- Activiti vs Dropbox
- Activiti vs Lovable
- Activiti vs Miro
- Activiti vs Microsoft Outlook
- Mozilla Firefox vs n8n
- Mozilla Firefox vs Temporal
- Mozilla Firefox vs Flowable
- Mozilla Firefox vs jBPM
- Mozilla Firefox vs Camunda
- Mozilla Firefox vs Nango
- Mozilla Firefox vs Kogito
- Mozilla Firefox vs Airbyte
- Mozilla Firefox vs Windmill
- Mozilla Firefox vs Meltano
- Mozilla Firefox vs Zapier
- Mozilla Firefox vs Microsoft Power Automate
- Mozilla Firefox vs Census
- Mozilla Firefox vs Decodable
- Mozilla Firefox vs Dify
- Mozilla Firefox vs Flowise
- Mozilla Firefox vs Google Chrome
- Mozilla Firefox vs Microsoft Edge
- Mozilla Firefox vs Safari
- Mozilla Firefox vs Jenkins
- Mozilla Firefox vs Plane
- Mozilla Firefox vs Vim
- Mozilla Firefox vs Kubernetes
- Mozilla Firefox vs PostHog
- Mozilla Firefox vs GitHub
- Mozilla Firefox vs Neovim
- Mozilla Firefox vs Eclipse
- Mozilla Firefox vs CloudAMQP
- Mozilla Firefox vs Dropbox
- Mozilla Firefox vs Lovable
- Mozilla Firefox vs Miro
- Mozilla Firefox vs Microsoft Outlook
