Camunda Reviews

We are using the product as an OAM that we have included in our software product. We are offering a private cloud solution and we sell it and deploy it to our customers. 

We are using it to create a low-code solution for strategic planning and performance management in order to automate the management processes such as planning, performance management, governance processes, and business process management as a whole.

We are using the BPMN engine of Camunda; we are not using the user interface. We are using just the engine, the back end of this. For us, it is working quite well.

The stability of the solution is quite good.

Technical support is good for getting alerts about bugs.

The form builder that will be utilized in the system and the data monitor both need improvement at this time. I want to exchange the data between the activity and UI basis. Currently, they are using a JSON file, which needs to be improved. We need something that can be used as a user interface and the user can make the data binding and exchange data between the activities.

This is what we did ourselves. We had the engine itself and we created a data monitor and formed it on top of it. This is what is missing in the system.

The initial setup can be complex for business users.

There occasionally be some bugs in the solution. 

The solution needs to offer more languages such as Chinese, Arabic, Hebrew, et cetera.

The system is stable. This is why we selected it. Based on other products, we've found the most appropriate results coming out from the Camunda BPM engine. It's very good.

There are occasionally a few bugs, however, we are quite capable of dealing with them.

Since we are using Camunda as a core solution, a core engine of our system, we are going to continue using it. I'm not willing to change it down the line. There's no plan for us to change it and we are not thinking about changing it. It has all functionalities and we are using about 50% of the engine itself in terms of its capability. We will continue to invest in utilizing all Camunda functionalities in the BPM engine.

In terms of technical support, we are using basic technical support as we are a technical organization. We are a software house. Our team is professional and they have experience in Java and private cloud technology. They are able to fix any issue. 

That said, there are certain bugs in Camunda. They are publishing information about them from time to time. We study the tool very carefully. Support from Camunda doesn't mean too much to us actually, as, in our organization, we have about 380 employees, and the majority of them are Java developers. We take the basic support to track the bugs only.

Positive

I also have some experience using Visio as business process management and ARIS as well as Bizagi.

We are partners of Software AG webMethods as an automation tool. We are using Mendix and OutSystems as a low-code solution. ARIS, webMethods, Mendix, and OutSystems are what we mainly use. 

You cannot compare Camunda with ARIS since ARIS is only for our documentation, business process documentation. You cannot compare it with Camunda. It is a totally different scope. However, in comparison between Mendix, OutSystems, and webMethods, they are very expensive tools and ultimately provide the same functionality, yet they are not using a pure BPMN XML. Maybe transferring the workflow between those systems doesn't work. That said, the consistency between, for example, Bonitasoft and Camunda and Bizagi is a matter of import and export. Between other systems such as webMethods and OutSystems and Mendix, for example, in webMethods, they are only still using an enhanced BPM engine mainly, meaning that they are not using the pure or the standard BPM notation. The same applies to Mendix and OutSystems.

The initial setup, for business users, is complex. If you compare it with cloud systems and Mendix, it is complicated. It has a very strong and very rigid back-end BPM engine and it's more trustworthy if XML files have been generated from Camunda. The quality of the XML file being generated from Camunda, the XML files of BPMN, is more trustworthy than other systems. That's why we selected it. This is the main reason that we selected it.

With the Camunda installer, the deployment of just the solution is pretty fast.

However, the automation process with the current functionality, meaning with the missing functionality of data monitor and data binding and with the lack of proper UI representation, it took us a year to develop those components to have a low-code solution on top of it.

Now, with our low-code solution on top, it will take us one to two days to have a visible process automated.

We are an integrator and we are consultants in business process management, and we are developing a tool on top of it. Therefore, we help our clients to implement. However, when we originally installed Camunda, we handled the process ourselves. The way we do things now, we try to make it easier for clients.

We are using a developer license. I can't speak to exactly how much we are paying, or exactly what license type that we are using. I'm not the technical lead or the solution delivery team. Therefore, I can't answer this question.

We did a lot of POCs on available products in the market, such as Bonitasoft, Camunda, Bizagi, so on. However, based on that POCs, we found that the best way to go forward in our solution in terms of the functionality and the accuracy of the XML files. If they could be generated by Camunda it can be more useful for us to adopt in our solution.

We are users of the solution.

We are the latest version due to the fact that we are developing our own product based on Camunda. We are developing a solution based on Camunda. We are a heavy user of Camunda.

Camunda is not so popular in the market due to the UI (meaning the form builder, the way of developing the forms which would be attached to the process), and the data monitor (how to exchange the data between the activities).

A company would need to create an integration framework between Camunda and other systems. If they sold their offering with the UI and data monitor it would be the biggest automation tool ever.

For us, with our experience with using the tool, you need a good developer to be able to use the system effectively. Other than that there are no issues. For an organization that wants to adopt Camunda, they need to have the proper resources, and the proper training to use the system. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. There's a bug inside the BPMN monitor that knocks a few points off the rating. If the system is not saved, it will crash.

One valuable feature of the solution is its flexibility. Unlike low-code platforms or those with predefined design patterns, Comunda allows for custom changes, providing the freedom to customize.

I have been working with the solution for the past six months.

The initial setup is straightforward.

I have worked with Pegasystems. Primarily, Pega operates on a case-based licensing model, where each workflow incurs charges. Many customers opt for Camunda for basic workflows and case management to save costs. However, for enterprise-level needs, especially those involving CRM functionalities, Pega is retained. Some organizations have transitioned specific workflows to Camunda while keeping Pega for comprehensive CRM solutions.

Camunda primarily functions as a BPM platform. It requires development work for customization. Users accustomed to a local setup may find it less preferable. At the same time, tech-savvy developers who enjoy extensive customization options may favor the solution due to its flexibility in adapting design models based on their preferences. For such developers, this solution would be a perfect ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is for credit flow processes in the banking industry, like loan approval processes and so on. The solution offers good automation and it is pretty simple to build a business process. We've also tried integration with other robotics and it was feasible.

Because we are partners, we currently use an enterprise edition. But sometimes we help our clients with community versions, so I have experience of both. These versions are very similar. The community version contains all the necessary features because there are only some applicable features in one of their web applications. 

I have found that this solution's applications are very competitive when it comes to some other tools, and not every tool has some front end applications for end-users. So Camunda will start with a complete application, which is quite useful, and they are ready to use directly after installation and payment. 

I would like to have a feature for audit logging and audit log management, and some history of use for the audit logs. It's not anything I need, but our clients often require these features and then we have to do it ourselves. I would also like additional models for location.

The solution is quite stable. We have had only one incident regarding stability. It was something between the IBM web publications server and Camunda, so I cannot say if it was backing Camunda or IBM BPM, and perhaps it was something between the two solutions. But since then everything has been very stable.

It is hard to say if this solution is scalable. We started with Camunda in Germany, and now they can't form them into a global company. We've contacted their support team on this, and sometimes it takes very long to get an answer from them. 

Their support system changes their authenticator on a daily basis and they are working on improving their response time. But it's not easy for me to get the right person if I want to discuss a problem. You work with one guy today, and tomorrow it will be another guy. Then I have to explain everything all over again. So it takes a lot of my time. The technical support, however, is still better than IBM BPM.

We used IBM BPM and Activiti BPM but we switched to Camunda because of the pricing model. Camunda is much cheaper. We've also found that IBM BPM is not really stable, some applications are very complex and some project verdicts were not as successful as we expected.

The initial setup is not that complicated, but it isn't easy either. Deployment took a few days. The deployment time depends more on the complexity of what you want to do with Camunda than the size of your organization. 

When I compare it to other BPM tools, like IBM, it is great, open source, and free when you use the community version. We are also working on the enterprise version, so we are very satisfied.

I feel that there is always room for improvement, so I rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution to run business processes that contain human tasks.

The speed and execution of DMN was a big selling point for us. It's very good at conducting business processes that are easily modeled and presented in a way that's easy to understand. 

Especially when you use the open-source version, there are issues with performance. 

The external programs that communicate with Camunda are kind of late 20th century in terms of style and need updating.

We've been using the solution for two years.

In general, the solution is pretty stable. 

It's hard to get information to size it properly if you don't use a Camunda subscription. That might not really be a Camunda issue; it could be a sizing problem. For example, they have issues with very high usage of the database even when there are very few processes running. I had a situation in which the databases were at 100% and they should not have been. 

Right now, we don't have too many users on the solution, but when it is done, we'll have about 25,000. It's quite scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward, but if you need to tweak any part of the it, it can get complex.

We did evaluate other options, but we were looking for something that was open source and small and there's not too much choice for those options.

Right now we use a standalone Camunda in Docker. Before, on previous projects, we used embedded Camunda in Java applications. We use both cloud and on-premises deployment models. For cloud deployment, we use Microsoft Azure as the provider.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use the free version because our organization is a consulting organization and we work normally for customers. My primary use case is for training and modeling purposes.

I use the BPMN and the DMN model. 

The most valuable feature is that it is easy to use. I train my colleagues and customers and I don't want them to need to learn how the solution works. I want to be the one who learns about the product and teach them BPMN. 

It's user friendly, much better than most tools I have seen.

The documentation could use improvement. 

I have been using Camunda for two years. 

For modeling it's very stable. At the execution level, I don't have experience.

I think it is scalable, but I don't have experience with scaling it. 

The initial setup of this platform was very simple.

Often more functions will make a model or tool more complex. I like the simplicity of Camunda. It is very easy to use. 

We are using the Camunda Platform to build data models.

The solution is good for data models.

I don't like the UI of the Camunda Platform, I have found the Signavio solution to be much better for me to create the process designs and execute them. Additionally, I have found the tools in the Camunda Platform are not compatible with some of my other tools. They should improve this in the future.

I rate Camunda Platform for approximately two years.

We have many people in my organization using this solution.

I have not contacted support, we use our internal IT team for support.

I have used other solutions previously, such as Signavio.

We have an annual subscription to this solution.

I would not recommend this solution because I did not have a good experience.

I rate Camunda Platform a five out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is for invoices, receipts and purchase orders. There is no specific line of business but we basically use it for some main processes that we want to be automated.

The solution is easily compatible with HTML forms and HTML language programming and that is the most significant part. The data model definition in Camunda is a little complicated, so for someone with industrial engineering background it would be hard. But for someone with a computer engineering programming background Camunda is much more understandable and really easy to use.

Just today I encountered a problem with the current version, and that is the functionality of the BPM standard, which is not yet implemented in Camunda. An example would be a new marker for tasks. Maybe the developers of Camunda can, as soon as possible, provide all possible functionalities of BPM standard in its process engine. Some are not yet supported and they can really cause serious problems for implementers.

In the next release I would like to have more documentation on how it can interact with other organization systems, as well as other documentation about API. I would also like more  support about features. It would be great for someone like me with a little programming and developing background, to see an easier platform for data modeling. A place where you can create your own data model, your own entities, your own entity relationship, and be able to find a form based on that data model. That would be much more straight forward for someone like me, as a teacher. But it's not provided here right now. I would also like an easy to use form builder.

I think this question can be better answered by a developer or someone who is backing the network and server. I'm more concerned with process modeling and the process deployment tasks. But as far as I'm concerned, yes, there hasn't been any problems with stability.

The technical support is good. Just last week, we wanted to know something about our modeler and how to change it to be compatible with the Persian language. The Persian language is a language where you write from right to left, so it's different from most European languages like English. So, when we started to use Persian and modeler, the text was messy and disorderly and we wanted to know how to correct it. We sent emails but the support team said it's better to ask this question on a forum. I asked the question in forums but I haven't received a response yet. I think it may be because this problem is a little rare, so that is why they couldn't help us. But I think the support is good. At least they responded to the email as fast as they could, even though they couldn't provide a solution.

The initial setup was very easy, but we haven't deployed the program yet, as we are still only testing it. We have tested how to deploy new processes, how to use the clips to deploy processes, and how to integrate your modeler into clips. If you are referring to these issues, I think the provided documentation is quite sufficient.

My advice to others would be to know their own abilities, their own resources. Are they comfortable with a lot of programming even for a simple form? Do they have enough programming provided in their resources? If they are not comfortable with that, it can take a little longer for them to adapt to Camunda. But if they have good developers, programmers, HTML, CSS and so on, they won't have a problem. I can also say the documentation is good and they have a live, technical forum where you can ask questions and get a fast response. I am not sure if it is available in all BPM packages, though.

On a scale from one to 10, I will rate this solution a seven, because there are quite a few things that could be improved.

The most valuable features are the management of internal processes, the ability to execute from design and the model for internal processes, the ability to make processes visible, and the ability to have information about the current state of each instance.

I've been using this solution for over five years.

This is a stable product - it works and doesn't disturb me or the IT director.

I previously used Activiti, but it had no well-developed tools to monitor administration or develop new processes.

Our initial setup was quite complex and took around six months due to some bureaucratic issues. However, I think that it could be faster for organizations without such issues.

This isn't a very expensive solution, and it's cheaper than its competitors in terms of licensing and resources.

Functional agility is the main reason we use this platform. I would rate this solution as nine out of ten.