Camunda Reviews

We use Camunda for the automation of the workflow and business process designer. We use the module cockpit and the workflow engine to orchestrate the process. We are a consulting company and we're not doing this for internal purposes. We mostly do this for projects, and these projects are for our clients.

The environment where we work is very dynamic and is changing a lot. So based on the circumstances, we mostly work on the delivery parts, as in project deliveries. At the beginning of the year, we have a clear scope, clear targets, but down the road, we face a lot of challenges where we face many dependencies. We need to constantly go around the dependencies and change things back and forth.

We have a lot of experience in the development, on the ERP, and so forth. We have seen that investing in a tool like Camunda is valuable, especially because it's an open-source product. When you do the customization, you'll be enriching and increasing the automation possibility of the product. So, the value is always increasing.

The best feature is the automation.

Camunda supports microservices and you can do multiple things. The most important thing is that you can reuse components that you have within the product. For example, let's say that I developed a workflow for a quality review; that is a workflow that can be reused in any new process. I can just ship it, plug-and-play, copy it, and reuse all of the features and components that are there. It means that I won't be spending too much time in terms of development to put it in place. To me, that is the most valuable thing about the product.

The only drawback is the time that it takes to have a complete set of workflows implemented on the Camunda platform. This is from drawing the modeling and the workflow up to the production release.

The support definitely has to be improved.

Second, it needs to be more intuitive. As it is now, to develop an automated process in Camunda, you would need to involve a front end developer, backend developer, and sometimes, someone who has experience with modeling. Where in Appian and Pega, you would be able to simply reduce these overheads by creating the process, the flow, and converting it within certain boundaries into the automated process.

The visualization part can definitely be improved. You can see the process moving live, but if you have a complex design where you would like to show the process in a different shape, that takes a lot of customization and a lot of coding effort to put this in place. The visualization needs not a little or a medium amount of work, but rather, it requires a lot of improvement. At the end of the day, we have the process, we have the workflow, we have the event, we have everything. However, what the people see at the end of the day is what they believe. So sometimes we know that we do have a lot of data and a lot of information, but we fail to represent this information in a way that meets or addresses the business requirements. Better visualization capabilities would help in this regard.

I have been working with Camunda BPM for almost two years.

I would say that it is stable, at least up to a certain extent. Whenever there is an update to the product available, we go ahead and update it to the latest.

This is a scalable platform. We have about 600 users and about 20 superusers. The superusers are developers, admins, and process engineers. They are a mix of process, business support, mobile app developers, and so forth.

Support is an area that is in need of improvement.

First, they don't have a strong knowledge center. If there is a challenge or there is an issue and you would like to look around, it's not straightforward. Their knowledge center does not address most of the challenges that a person who goes through the cycle from scratch. In building the process and building the products and building the workflow, a person will go through a painful process if they don't have enough experience.

When I say enough experience, I mean a minimum of 16 to 18 months. If someone doesn't have this experience on Camunda, it will be difficult and they will suffer to get things up to speed. The learning curve is too high, so they can do more if they enrich their knowledge center.

The second problem is that the support services from Camunda are not straightforward. When we communicate with them, they have to evaluate you. Sometimes they charge you per workflow, but there is no standard model. It is difficult for us because we have an agreement with the client that at the beginning of that project, we put in our estimation as to the required resources in terms of the infrastructure resources, and in terms of logistic resources, and support. With Camunda, because of the undefined or non-standard costing, that becomes a challenge.

So sometimes we go to a client and we see that the support costs will be much higher than the benefit of the digitalization. That's an example where we decide to do only the modeling for that client using Camunda and the classic workflow development will take place. This is the case, especially for small and medium businesses. For enterprise clients, definitely, we always go with full-fledged support.

I have limited experience with Appian and Pega BPM, but my most in-depth experience is with Camunda BPM. We did a pilot project with Appian for one or two months and we did one with Pega for about one month.

During our evaluation, we have seen that there are pros and cons to all of them.

We also used K2 as one of the platforms, as well as Microsoft BPM. The Microsoft product was a combination between Dynamics and SharePoint and so forth, it was really rigid. Similarly, K2 has a lot of limitations.

This is important because once we get the business requirements, we adapt to the system. We don't force the business to change, especially in this region. We are in the Middle East, Gulf area, and working with the government sector means that they have their own standards that we need to comply with. They have their own procedures where the tools, the IT, and the process have to be adjusted to meet their requirements. For example, consider a supply chain and the procurement process. This is different from one organization to another.

This is the main thing that holds us back from investing in a system like Pega. Pega, to a certain extent, is good. It has most of the capabilities. It also gives you the room to customize to the extent that you feel fit. However, the cost is too high. When we talk about the licensing costs and the customization costs, it's extremely expensive and out of reach.

The initial setup was not straightforward. The complex part was to load or update the backlogged events. So if I have a process, which is already past the flow to a certain stage, after the implementation, if I did not start from scratch, you would need to make the data or the workflow that you have current with the process. Making it current with the live process monitoring is a nightmare. It takes a lot of development effort, a lot of data validation, and a lot of workarounds to bring this up to speed.

I have not seen that there is too much support in being able to bring in existing services. For example, if someone has an existing process, an existing instance with existing data, which is not linked, there is no explanation of what the best approach is and how to load and how to bring this into the new process and make it current, covering the backlog.

This is especially true if the backlog is something that would be crucial for some of the processes that are down-line. For example, in the case where you have a successor process where it depends on the predecessor too much in terms of the decision, and also in terms of that project. Normally, we deal with delivery on projects, so we look at the delivery and the forecast and the delays. So to see the project delays, sometimes we need to go back in time to see whether the delay was in the first stage or on the second stage or on the third stage. Based on this analysis, we always create our baseline by the end of the year and reiterate on our scopes at the beginning of the year.

We have an in-house team of two resources that maintain the product.

The cost of this solution is better than some competing products.

My advice for anybody who is considering Camunda BPM is that they implementing a PoC first.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We use the Camunda platform for workflow management.

The architecture is good because it's a headless workflow. I can create my own frontend, and it's fully API-based. Our approach is more flexible, so I can use the Camunda API to generate my own workflow blueprint. 

Additionally, it's cloud-ready as we have deployed it on the Kubernetes container platform, which aligns with our cloud-first architecture. These are the aspects we like about Camunda from the IT side.

Camunda lacks sufficient dashboards for operations and reporting. Although I can create dashboards and reports using the provided framework, it's not as enterprise-ready as some of the competitors in the market. They offer ready-made dashboards that are easier to create compared to Camunda. That's an area where Camunda can improve.

So, in future releases, I would like to see better dashboards.

I have been using Camunda Platform for a year. 

I would rate it around seven out of ten. We haven't encountered significant issues or unavailability of services.

In my organization, at least 100 users are using this solution. I would rate it an eight out of ten in terms of scalability.

It requires maintenance such as patching and other regular tasks.

I would definitely recommend it. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a six out of ten because Camunda does not provide a prebuilt interface. I have to develop it myself. To provide a comprehensive product to my business users, I need a frontend. The frontend provided by Camunda vendors is very basic. Most of the vendor's customers develop their own UI or frontend using technologies like React, React Native, or JavaScript frameworks. 

So I rate Camunda Platform a six out of ten due to the incomplete delivery of a frontend. Without a proper frontend, the business cannot effectively use the platform. This is an area where I'm still exploring how well the competition performs. That's why I'm giving a slightly lower rating. However, in terms of orchestration, API capabilities, and cloud compatibility, Camunda is very good.

I have used IBM BPM and Newgen in the past. We are still using IBM BPM alongside Camunda.

I use Camunda Platform for trainings. I teach people how to develop process application. I am helping people understand what Business Process Management Suites are, what they can use it for, and their advantages. I am a trainer and a consultant, but not a reseller.

We use the open-source free version so we do not pay for support.

Because Camunda has various versions, there is the Platform itself, which contains the process server, and there is the Modeler, and it is distributed differently and used for different purposes.

I think that the positives of Camunda Platform are that our customers can start with the free version. I think it is the most important.

I do not recommend anybody use the free version for production without paying for a support subscription. I always recommend to use the free version only for testing and learning purposes. And I think for that purpose, it is perfect.

There are a few things that I'm missing. For instance, the user interface creator, which I know other systems have, like Aurea or Lombardi, which are IBM solutions. The interface creator, including the data model creator or some module which would allow the users who are not programmers or business consultants and who are not technically skilled in database and Java programming, to create data models and user interfaces. I used to use have this with Savvion and Aurea BPMs.

I am using the Camunda Platform for about six years.

Because we use it only for learning purposes and the solution is not used by more than four - six people at once, we haven't faced any issues.

Our purpose is very simple, it is only for trainings for our customers who come to us to learn how to create process application. I do about four trainings a year and they usually have from four to six attendees. So it's about 20 people per year who have access for only two months each.

They receive the access to their personal account for two months. They receive it when they attend the course and they have access two months after the course and then the account is closed and the tenant is deleted.

In terms of how much staff is needed for deployment and maintenance, it is just me and one programmer.

Hard to say if we will increase usage. I am in communication with another company which is developing their own process platform, so maybe I will switch from Camunda to their platform in the future.

We have been using the community very often, but we haven't tried to contact support because we do not pay for the support.

I did use two platforms intensely in the past. I worked with the IBM Business Process Suite. It was later replaced by the Lombardi solution. Then I was working with and implementing Savvion, which was later bought by Banerjee and now is represented by Aurea Business Process Management Suite, which is still my favorite.

I met in-person with Mr. Ketabchi, who is the father of Savvion Business Process Management Platform and I really believe that it is a very well designed solution and very user-friendly for the business consultants and business process analysts. It is my favorite one. After Progress Software divested this solution and created the Aurea company and distributed it from there, Aurea managers decided that our market is too small for their interest, and we had to search for new solutions.

Then we switched to Cordys and we became a partner Cordys for Central Europe, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia Republic and Hungary.

We implemented Cordys to at least one important customer which is East European broadcasting, TV broadcasting corporation. But then Cordys was diverted by Mr. Baan, the founder of Cordys to OpenText, and again OpenText changed their sales policy. So again, our market is too small for them.

We were searching again for another solution. So the next in the queue was with Bonita and Bizagi, but finally I decided for the free version of Camunda because at that time I only needed something for training purposes because six years ago I started to concentrate on trainings for business process analysts and consultants and for trainings in the area of process automation.

The initial setup is not too complicated.

We started with the analysis. The implementation depends on what you are asking for. We had a few discussions with the developers about what I expect and they developed and implemented it in about two months with about 10 days of work.

I have to say that the developers I cooperated with had previous experience with Camunda.

The price is for support, because as far as I know, Camunda doesn't sell licenses, it provides service support, not the licenses. It is a difference. Because you don't buy a license, but you do buy the support services. I think that for the support services, the price is very fair. And if I would go for the project, I would surely decide for Camunda because the yearly support price is very fair. I don't remember exactly. But at that time, when we did the calculation, it was about €20,000 per year.

My advice to anyone considering Camunda is that I recommend to use the free version for trainings and for testing and for not very crucial process automation for pilot project purposes, but not for production and not for key processes. For key processes and for production, I always recommend to buy the support.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Camunda Platform a 10 for sure.

It's very good. But it depends on what you are expecting.

For other purposes, there might be something else which is preferable. It is not easy to say there is one business process management for all purposes, for all companies. I would recommend Camunda for either small or middle-sized companies.

I would not recommend it for corporate uses because to integrate in this scenario requires much more extensive and intensive technical work for integration with the usual applications, et cetera. Therefore, Bonita or IBM Business Management Suite, for example, already have many thousands of connectors to Salesforce, SAP, ERP Systems, Microsoft systems, et cetera, whereas with Camunda, you are almost in the beginning and you have to develop everything by yourself. So for larger companies, the implementation might be too long and too expensive.

Camunda has streamlined our automation processes, particularly in decision-making and BPMN modeling, reducing manual intervention.

The platform's approach to BPMN modeling is straightforward and versatile, making it easy to adopt and use effectively.

I've been using Camunda for about three to four months.

We haven't encountered any software bugs so far in terms of product stability. 

The platform is capable of scaling from small to complex applications.

We previously used Bizagi but switched to Camunda due to its superior BPMN and DMN modeling capabilities and better integration with other applications.

Initially, installation was challenging, but recent improvements have made it much easier. Following the Camunda website's instructions, we completed the setup in less than an hour.

We implemented the platform in-house without involving third parties, but we're considering future integrated applications with external software like UiPath and chatbots.

The product's robust toolset and integration for BPMN and DMN modeling makes it a worthwhile investment for our organization.

The product integration between BPMN and DMN is a standout feature. It eliminates the need for additional software and simplifies decision tool development.

We used the solution in quite a simple manner. We were disappointed that the dictionary was missing. The hierarchy could not be shown, defined, or structured the way we like. We did not use all the features. I have used BPMN Modeler.

Camunda is really useful. That is why my colleagues and I use it in the company. The solution is useful for small projects.

The product does not have a dictionary. The tool must enable users to build or design sub-processes. It must provide a more convenient and easy way to define sub-processes.

I have been using the solution for five years.

The tool is always stable. We have no troubles. I rate the stability an eight to nine out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a five out of ten. We have ten users. The product is used once or twice a week.

I rate the ease of setup seven to eight out of ten.

We use a community version.

All the business process management tools are quite similar. We have to get used to each application's individual ideas, thoughts, and intentions. We use BIC for our organization and Camunda for the projects. It is easier to use Camunda for small projects. Signavio is also a competitor.

It's not possible for us to define a process as deep as it is necessary to automate it. We tested but did not use DMN capabilities. I will recommend the solution to others. I just finished studying business process management. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We have a team that analyzes our existing processes. We discuss the manual processes currently in place within our company. We work on defining and representing these processes through block diagrams. This helps us to automate them. The processes in which we use the solution include customer order processing and quotation requests. 

Using the BPMN helps us to have a common shared communication language when discussing processes.

The tool's most valuable feature is BPMN diagrams and the possibility to automate processes.

The Camunda Modeler installation poses a challenge, requiring local installation, which doesn't help collaboration like other online tools, for instance. Camunda needs to improve its user interface.

I have been working with the product for 4 months.

The tool is very stable since we run it on-premises. 

Camunda is scalable. At present, my company has three users. By next week, four more users will be added. Over a couple of weeks, a few more users will be added. 

I have not contacted the technical support yet. 

Camunda's deployment is easy. You need to click some buttons. 

I did the tool's deployment myself. 

We use Camunda's community edition, which is free. 

I rate the overall product a seven out of ten. 

We use Camunda to automate business processes.

The most valuable features are the workflow, the task list, and the modeler where we use VPN.

An improvement would be to support Angular 2 instead of AngularJS, which is quite old. I would also like Camunda to provide support for migrating to the new version so that my processes migrate without any problems.

I've been using Camunda for almost six months.

Stability-wise, Camunda is good, but sometimes task queries get very slow when we have a large number of tasks.

The scalability is quite good, we've had no challenges with it.

The initial setup is quite easy - I set it up in 30-35 hours.

The license is quite expensive, which is why we went with the community version.

We chose to use Camunda because it's open-source, easy to develop, and scalable, plus we were able to develop some of the enterprise features offered with the license in-house only. I would definitely recommend anyone thinking of implementing Camunda to try it out, just bear in mind that when the number of tasks increases, you need to write your own queries and that you need to keep the number of form variables low because performance decreases when it gets higher. I would rate Camunda Platform eight out of ten.

We use the workflow only in Camunda. It acts as libraries for workflow visualization, focusing on automating my company's processes.

Camunda is used for process automation with the bot automation. We use API from IPT software, and Camunda serves as a service for workflows. It has improved the cost benefits on Google Cloud.

Camunda serves as an automation library and provides lightweight deployment to the cloud. The personal thing for workflow automation is significant.

Camunda needs to improve its user interface for low-code development and provide more user interface options beyond the basic workflow. It also requires further development to compete with platform features, like the deployment and development life cycle.

We started using Camunda one year ago and began implementing some processes on the platform.

Camunda has benefits concerning the cost on Google Cloud, however, we have to invest more in development for scalability.

We have used IBM BPM before, however, Camunda was adopted for certain processes. Camunda doesn't require a license and offers a free version.

Camunda is cheap because it doesn't require a license. We can use the free version and manage everything in the company.

We plan to use Camunda workflows and relate them to IBM BPM in the future.

Camunda's platform could benefit from better UI for low-code development. Other competitor platforms have more comprehensive tools for deployment and development.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.