We performed a comparison between Camunda and Make based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Process Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The BPMN diagram is valuable. For our use case of transferring money from one account to another, the connections have to be done in the traditional financial ways. There are a lot of unexpected errors and a lot of instability with this kind of system, and we are using Camunda in order to have clear flows. With BPMN, I can show a flow to my business partner, and the business team can easily understand what's going on. The technical team can understand what the implementation is, and we can model different errors and the process for recovering from these errors."
"The architecture is good because it's a headless workflow. I can create my own frontend, and it's fully API-based."
"It is an absolutely stable solution."
"The most valuable feature is that, with a visual system, you can try to have a process client before beginning the programming for the application."
"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."
"The UI is very user-friendly compared to other products. The native, vanilla UI is very interesting and intuitive to use. It's user-friendly when it comes to modernizing a business process."
"The solution is easily compatible with HTML forms and HTML language programming and that is the most significant part."
"The solution is useful for small projects."
"The most valuable features of Make are the additional options when compared to other similar solutions. For example, with Google my business, you can only do certain things with Zapier, whereas with Make, you can do a little bit more."
"In the latest version, there are certain workflow nodes that are missing. Camunda should bring those back, or rather, develop them quickly."
"I think that Camunda can try to do better when it comes to solving the complexities of all the products in its software stack."
"I'm from the .NET world and I would like to use it, rather than Java."
"It is not difficult to change existing processes. The difficulty was in integration, for example, to call an external web API, and in the security capabilities, to use a vault for secrets. That was difficult."
"In the future, I would like to see better transactional integrity."
"They could provide more documentation regarding the integration of different programming languages."
"The GUI needs to be improved, with more configuration options."
"It has a Postgres database at the backend, and it is very difficult to scale if you increase the number of processes running. We did hit some barriers. We were able to overcome them, but it was a problem. Camunda has another product called Camunda Cloud, which supposedly doesn't have the same scalability problems, but we are not using Camunda Cloud because the set of features is smaller than Camunda On-Premises. So, its scalability can be improved. Because it has a single database, it is more difficult to scale if you have a huge success."
"Make could improve the ease of use, it can be more complicated than other solutions. There are a lot of elements that are more technical than in other solutions."
Camunda is ranked 1st in Process Automation with 71 reviews while Make is ranked 29th in Process Automation with 2 reviews. Camunda is rated 8.2, while Make is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Camunda writes "Open-source, easy to define new processes, and easy to transition to new business process definitions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Make writes "An affordable cloud solution for automation and data manipulation". Camunda is most compared with Apache Airflow, Bizagi, Pega BPM, IBM BPM and Appian, whereas Make is most compared with . See our Camunda vs. Make report.
See our list of best Process Automation vendors.
We monitor all Process Automation reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.