Side by side
Every product side by side on the capabilities a buyer actually decides on, with the source and the date behind each cell.
| Capability | AnyLogic7 October 2026 | Arena7 October 2026 | Bizagi Modeler7 October 2026 | FlexSim7 October 2026 | iGrafx7 October 2026 | ProcessModel7 October 2026 | ProModel7 October 2026 | Simio7 October 2026 | Simul87 October 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Owner | The AnyLogic Company | Rockwell Automation | Bizagi | Autodesk | iGrafx | ProcessModel, Inc. | BigBear.ai | Simio LLC, an Aegis Software company | Minitab |
| Windows | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | not stated | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| macOS | Yes | No | No | No | not stated | Yes | not stated | No | No |
| Linux | Yes | No | not stated | No | not stated | No | not stated | No | No |
| Runs in a browser | Yes | No | not stated | No | Yes | No | not stated | No | Yes |
| Publishes its pricing | No | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No | No |
| Free tier | Personal Learning Edition, never expires | Student and demo edition, never expires | Bizagi Modeler, never expires | FlexSim Express, never expires | None published | Personal License, never expires | None published | None published | None published |
| Built-in AI assistant | Yes | not stated | not stated | not stated | not stated | No | not stated | not stated | not stated |
| Your own AI app can drive it | not stated | not stated | not stated | not stated | not stated | Yes | not stated | Yes | not stated |
| Optimization and experiments | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | not stated | Yes | not stated | Yes | Yes |
| Three dimensional visualization | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | not stated | Yes | not stated |
| Agent based and system dynamics | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | not stated | not stated | not stated |
| Shared libraries and approvals | A cloud platform carrying model versions, cloud run experiments, shared storage and a documented interface for automation, offered as a public tier and as a private deployment. Separately, the desktop product documents version control through a standard source control system and a file format designed to be split across a team. | None documented. There is no cloud tier, no browser version and no published model library or approval workflow. The published system requirements describe a desktop installation only. | Shared modeling with collaboration around a documented process, feeding a low code automation platform where a modeled process can be executed rather than only analyzed. Collaboration belongs to the paid Enterprise plan; the free plan is for one person working locally. | None documented as a separate tier. The published material describes a desktop application, with no browser version, cloud service, shared library or approval workflow. | The strongest governance position in this assessment, and the reason the product exists. A process repository holds the models centrally, the platform is delivered as a service rather than as a desktop install, and risk and compliance management are documented as part of the product rather than as an add on. Where the desktop simulation products in this comparison govern a library of files, this governs a system of record that other people are expected to read. | Not stated in the published material. Team packages are priced for four and ten users, but no shared model library or approval workflow is described on the publisher's public pages. | Not established from published material. A cloud offering, ProModel.ai, is described as maintaining a digital twin from live operational data through an API, which implies a hosted component. Nothing published describes a model library, an approval workflow or a permissions scheme. | A Portal Edition, documented in the publisher's release notes, takes experiments uploaded from the desktop product and shows them in a browser with dashboards. It publishes results rather than models: it is a way to distribute an answer, not a way to govern how models are built. | A browser version sharing one interface with the desktop product, which lets a model be opened by somebody who has not installed anything. No separate approval or model governance layer is documented. |
| Weighted total, of 100 | 74 | 63 | 62 | 68 | 62 | 87 | 50 | 65 | 72 |
Every cell is taken from the vendor's own published material. The sources, with the day each was read, are listed on each product's review page. Where the published sources do not establish a capability the cell reads "not stated", which is a statement about the sources rather than about the product.
We are choosing between Arena and FlexSim. Which is better?
Two mature discrete event tools, both Windows only, neither publishing a price. The question that separates them is not capability. It is what has to exist at the end of the project.
Everyone here already knows Arena. Is there a reason to shortlist anything else?
Arena is taught in more universities than anything else here, and publishes no price for any edition. What a buyer gains by leaving it, and what they lose.
Do I need to buy simulation software, or will a free process modeling tool answer my question?
One is the easiest simulation tool in its category and costs several thousand a seat. The other simulates resources and shifts for nothing. Which one your process needs.