Camunda Reviews

I mainly use it in investment banks, in workflow management. For example, the onboarding can be from one box. So when the client comes, the sales guy would collect the documentation. Then there would be another task, and someone would be reviewing those documents then upload those documents into some other third party application. This is just one example but we have a lot of complex use cases.

I've found the active community most valuable but it also provides you with a lot of other features.

In terms of areas for improvement, they can come up with something called a generic workflow application. The engine is really good, but I believe that if they can come up with some sort of application while still keeping the core of Camunda, that would be really great. An application which could cater to a generic workflow, the same application can cater to any domain people can make use of it.

In regards to advice, I would say the scalability features, which are available in the paid version, should also be available to the community. But otherwise, if I'm talking about the quality or the scalability issue, it's still good.

On the scalability side, on the paid version, there are a lot of other options. When I think on the free community side, the community version, not all options are available. But, for me, it's a price over use case.

I was previously using Activiti. I had been using Activiti for two years. So Camunda is just a branch which has bifurcated from Activiti only.

I would rate the solution somewhere around 9 out of 10 because it is very good. The documentation and all that they have done is just splendid. On the documentation side, Camunda has done a really good job.

I would say that Camunda should actually focus on small cases as well. There's a lot of space out there, for small businesses. If they can, they should cater to them.

We primarily use the solution for our clients. 

The flexibility is great. 

I appreciate the compact and clear source code.

We have faced problems with the performance.

Camunda has two options: the Camunda main platform and Camunda Cloud. Right now we are trying to solve problems with the Camunda Cloud and there are significant problems with performance. We communicated this with the Camunda team. We're a member of the Camunda community and we try to solve those problems with them.

Community support is lacking and you need to pay for enterprise support.

I'd like to have the ability to buy into the data model. There are no data models in Camunda and we need information about variables and process instances. In other BPMs or other big BPM platforms, for example, IBM, there is that feature.

I've been using the solution for a few years at this point.

We've had some issues with the performance of the product, particularly on the cloud deployment. 

We have about 100 people using the solution at this time. 

We only have developers that use it. We are a development company.

We didn't buy Camunda enterprise support. We only use community support and we don't have, to be honest, enough community support. It's not very helpful. We have many unanswered questions.

We've worked with many different solutions, including IBM, BPM, Oracle, SAP, and VPN platforms, among others.

I like Camunda due to the fact that I can embed it into our infrastructure applications. The library, not the whole sales server.

We use the community version, which is free. I'm not sure of enterprise pricing.

You do need to pay for the enterprise level to get support. Otherwise, you have access to community support, and it is lacking. 

We are end-users of the solution. 

I'd advise potential new users to learn BPM notation. It is an issue due to the fact that we have to propagate BPM notation to our customers as a lot of customers don't know what is it and how to use and why BPM is a good solution.

Currently, this is the best solution compared to global JBPM and other open-source BPM platforms.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

The feature that I like most is the decoupling architecture. I can use any other tools to create services and the UI, and then use them together with the Camunda BPMN engine. 

I would like to see more examples of using .NET and Camunda. I'm from the .NET world and I would like to use it, rather than Java. For Java, Camunda is great. For .NET I have opinion that need more real life examples. For example I woudl like to see example of  .NET Blazor UI with Camunda.

Also, I would like to see more examples of how to work with a team of users.

I am new to Camunda BPM and have been using it for only one year.

It is stable and I don't have any problems with it.

I don't have any experience with scaling Camunda in practice. However, I have read about it and feel that it's a scalable solution. We can install a lot of different installation and they can work together.

We didn't have any experience with technical support.

The initial setup is easy. I wouldn't say that it is complex at all. They deployment takes only a day. If you don't want to use something specific then you can install it in two hours.

We use the open-source version, which can be used at no cost.

I would highly recommend the open-source version of Camunda, which can be used free of charge, for any software development company that would like to implement BPM in their software solutions. For software companies, it is a very good product.

You can have BPM in an engine and you can use external software solutions to create the UI, and you don't need to pay anything for licensing. This means that you can incorporate it fully, and use as much as you need. You can expand your software solutions if you want, without any license, which I think is great.

This is a good product but because it's open-source, it's always missing something.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

I mainly use the solution for learning purposes.

I primarily use the solution in order to get a clear view of my customer, including what we are doing and what processes are being made making it easy to see everything that is happening.

Overall, the solution has been very solid.

The solution is very customizable.

We're currently using the community version, which is open-source and free to use.

The solution is stable.

For the short time I have with the tool, today, I can't see something that is missing as a product and its benefits. Maybe minor things that I haven't had the opportunity to notice yet, like an easy installation using Docker or scripts where you can see the functionality quickly.

I've been using the solution for about a month or so at this point. It's still quite new to me. 

The stability of the product is very good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable. 

We haven't really experimented with scalability at all. We haven't used it for very long. The process we are running now does not have a large volume. Our processing is not too high today. I didn't push the framework to see how it goes with big volume data.

Currently, we have only three people that are using it in the company.

We haven't used the solution for very long and therefore haven't really had a need to reach out to technical support. As I've never been in contact with them, I can't evaluate how useful or helpful they are.

I have looked at Bonita Software a little bit, however, I haven't gotten too far in terms of studying it.

The solution's initial setup has a medium level of difficulty. It's not as easy and it's not hard. Maybe someone who is starting out and doesn't have any experience with any other framework may get into some headaches. However, I've worked with it now and for my level of expertise, it's got a medium level of difficulty to set it up.

We're testing the solution still and therefore we are using the community version right now. I wanted to take a look at the enterprise version, however, my customer would like to see more value before they agree to get into it.

We're just customers and end-users. We're currently still experimenting with the product and learning about it.

I'm using the latest version of the solution. I cannot speak to the exact version number, however.

I'd advise users considering the solution to stick to the documentation and go to their GitHub to view some staples. There is a lot of good stuff in there.

So far, we have been happy with the product and its capabilities. I would rate it at a nine out of ten.

The most valuable feature is that it provides flexibility.

Also, it is easy to use. As long as you have all of the information you need on the platform, it is really not that complicated and can be used by anybody. It doesn't have to be operated by IT people.

The GUI needs to be improved, with more configuration options. The backend needs to be more configurable, as well. The security needs to be improved.

Generally speaking, other tools are more mature.

I think that stability is fine, although if you are using your own solution it can be complex. We developed our own backend, and it is working fine.

There are a couple of areas that can be a problem for scalability.

We do not have a complex system, and we are using the internet documentation.

We used a different solution on another project, years ago.

To do the initial setup, to get it up and running, is not complex and it can be done in less than two days. When you want to move it to production you have to set up the security, the front end, and the business layer. If you are using it internally then it is ok, but it is more complex if it is going to be used by the public.

We handled the implementation in-house.

For an internal project, this is a solution that you can install and have up and running quite quickly. As soon as you have a complex problem then you have limitations.

The processing engine is fine and is not an issue.

If I were rating this solution for internal use then I would give it a seven out of ten. On the other hand, if I were rating it for use by the public then I would rate it a three out of ten. With respect to security, there are a lot of question marks. 

Overall, I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

We are using Camunda BPM to schedule outbound phone calls.

The most valuable feature is the scheduling.

The upfront enterprise-level support could have been better. They need improvement.

The initial set up could be simplified, it's complex.

I would like to see better sales support, upfront implementation, and more a more wizard-like walkthrough with the next release.

I have been working with Camunda BPM for three months.

We are using the most recent version.

It's a stable solution. 

We have not had any issues in the three months that we have been using it.

We have not done any scaling yet.

Technical support is good. 

We have more of an issue with sales support.

We did not use another solution previously. Camunda was our first choice.

The initial setup was complex and it took us five days to deploy it.

Licensing costs are anywhere from $80,000 to $100,000 USD per year.

For anyone who is interested in using Camunda BPM, I would recommend reading the documentation. 

The documentation is good and can be easily accessed online.

I am happy with Camunda BPM.

I would rate Camunda BPM an eight out of ten.

The flexibility characteristic in a BPMS, through BPMN and DMN, is undoubtedly the most interesting feature for our business.

Together with a Java component we develop, where we register municipal, state, and federal holidays, we then do all SLA control during the execution of a process, avoiding countermeasures and improving the relationship with the client.

I think it would be important to internationalize the Cockpit and the Admin as well as with the Tasklist.

Another important improvement would be to invest in the creation of more types of fields in the Camunda Modeler so that you could dynamically build more complex forms, such as native type arrays, and customized arrays of objects.

We have been using it for two years.

I did not encounter stability problems.

On one occasion, we did automated tests with Selenium. After, we had a fairly large number of processes running in the engine and this slowed the performance, but did not represent a case in production.

• Lightweight architecture and scalable

• Wide coverage of BPMN, CMMN and DMN standards in both modeling and execution

• Free use as open source

• Excellent tool for modeling diagrams

• Option to get enterprise services such as service level agreement, bug fixes, patch releases and priority to request features.

Some of most important Enterprise features are process instance history, graphical interface to process instance modification/migration, heatmap analysis, decision table live editing, and access for best practices documentation.

• Knowledge management

• Replacement of manual tasks by automatic decisions

• Improvement in the speed of work queues

• Orchestration of services with more precise information

• Happy customers with better services

Navigation between diagrams directly from the shapes Call Activity, Business Rules Task, Decision Task, Case Task, and Process Task.

We have used this solution since 2015.

Even in the community versions the product is very stable and with excellent scalability results.

The lightweight architecture permits us to scale better than other traditional BPM solutions. The use of Spring Boot and Docker is a modern approach to manage this scalability and high availability.

Technical support for this solution was excellent. We received support directly from the guys next to the engineering team in Berlin.

We knew that we needed to invest in a new solution due to ROI and customer satisfaction. When selecting a vendor, we look for a good road map, scalability and a stable version.

Installing the server side is easy. Just click on Download button at the site, unzip and run. The modeling tools can be downloaded and run on premises or directly from the cloud.

Camunda and Red Hat were on our shortlist.

Compare this tool with BPM and Drools.