Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Camunda vs OpenText Process Automation comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Camunda
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
78
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (1st), Process Automation (1st), Business Orchestration and Automation Technologies (3rd), AI Software Development (2nd), AI Customer Support (61st), AI IT Support (4th)
OpenText Process Automation
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
28th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Business Process Management (BPM) category, the mindshare of Camunda is 9.2%, down from 21.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Process Automation is 1.2%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Management (BPM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Camunda9.2%
OpenText Process Automation1.2%
Other89.6%
Business Process Management (BPM)
 

Featured Reviews

CristianoGomes - PeerSpot reviewer
Owner at a tech services company with 1-10 employees
Supports long-running asynchronous processes effectively but has not evolved much in recent years
I think Camunda is focusing too much on the SaaS offering right now and not much on improving and developing the product itself. I did not see any innovations on that aspect, especially for the open-source version. I was making some tests recently and the tool seemed pretty much the same as it was three or four years ago. Since they made the move to cloud deployment in a more SaaS-oriented way, they do not invest too much in the community version. To be honest, it did not change much from the Activiti initial version. Activiti was pretty much what Camunda is today. They invested a lot on Zeebe and made it the engine for their SaaS cloud version. Camunda itself, the embedded engine, did not evolve too much. They could invest more on that.
Senthil Natarajan - PeerSpot reviewer
Chief Operating Officer at a outsourcing company with 51-200 employees
The solution enables automation of supply chain and invoice processing with comprehensive integration and workflow capabilities
The main valuable features of OpenText AppWorks are the BPM modules. There is the standard BPM modeler and a case modeler. These are two strong features from the workflow layer. Additionally, the integration capability of the solution is beneficial. With these features, we are able to use OpenText AppWorks for automating supply-chain-related problems, vendor process automations, and invoice automations. We have built almost twenty-plus types of solutions and implemented around three hundred fifty-plus implementations. The solution also allows us to integrate it with our ERP system.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The architectural part of Camunda for workflow design is highly valuable, especially the Camunda Modeler, which allows quick process design and implementation."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share the logic within the rules engine with the business, so you can put it up for everybody to read."
"It is quite easy to build a simple process without any knowledge of programming."
"One valuable feature of the solution is its flexibility."
"The best feature is the automation."
"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."
"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 biggest difference between Camunda and Bonita might be that Camunda is simpler and more flexible for setting, though we are at the beginning and need to experiment."
"In terms of the scalability and the handling of complexity, the customers are satisfied, and we also have confidence in the solution to achieve whatever implementations are required."
"AppWorks is a very quick development platform with low-coding capability and strong integration with third-party systems."
"The monitoring aspect is highly valuable, as it offers an exceptional capability to track every minute of action performed by a business user in the global context."
"From a business perspective, the most valuable aspect lies in the optimization of processes."
"OpenText AppWorks has standard features such as system-to-system and human-to-human integrations, but what I find most valuable in the solution is its monitoring feature that tells you more about your processes, how to restart and how to stop each process, etc."
"We really appreciate the process automation and how can you create human tasks as one of your processes."
"The good part of OpenText AppWorks is that all of its components are together in one platform, including integration capability, UI capability, and workflow capability."
"One of the most useful features is the code is customizable, we can make it our own."
 

Cons

"Camunda needs to improve its user interface for low-code development and provide more user interface options beyond the basic workflow."
"Customization and tech stack could be up-to-date."
"The initial setup can be complex for business users."
"The product must provide more videos and training materials."
"There should be a multi-tenant solution for the platform where it supports multiple organizations on one platform instead of having to spin up multiple clusters for each organization. There should be an easy way to integrate different departments into one platform without having to operate multiple platforms. The operations should be easier with the enterprise solution. It should not create more overhead for the operations people."
"In the future, I would definitely like to see the process administration (migration, audit, tracking) and process evaluation (optimize) features added to the community edition."
"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."
"I think Camunda is focusing too much on the SaaS offering right now and not much on improving and developing the product itself."
"The crucial missing element is the archival function."
"The solution needs to continue to enhance the low-coding feature within the product itself."
"OpenText AppWork's low-code capabilities can be enhanced by integrating them with AI offerings like Aviator."
"There could be some improvements with the low code design part. It could be more customizable and more user friendly."
"AppWorks could be improved by including BPM simulation."
"OpenText needs improvements in its integration model to align with newer integration types."
"The integration could improve."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing structure."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is good for a startup. When we started, its price was fair, but the way we are using it to orchestrate microservices makes it expensive. When you are growing as a company, you would have more microservices, and you would have more users. There is an exponential effect when you are growing in terms of the number of conditions, processes, and users because they bill you per process. So, the price was increasing very quickly for us, and it was very difficult."
"We are using the open-source version of this solution."
"Its price is decent. Everything is included in the license. The Community version is also good to start with. We are using the Community version."
"I think Camunda BPM can improve their licensing costs. It isn't easy to find clients with Camunda BPM licenses mainly because it's quite expensive."
"We pay for the license of this solution annually."
"In Africa, the cost of deployment is an important factor to consider since it adds to the overall cost. This might be the only drawback to using it."
"I tried to get some information about buying the license for the solution, but I found it kind of hard to understand the business model."
"We have an annual subscription to this solution."
"AppWorks is pretty expensive."
"The price is on the higher side."
"Pricing for OpenText AppWorks, specifically in the Indian market, is reasonable, but I'm not aware if it's still reasonable outside of India. The licensing cost is based on the number of licenses and the number of users. OpenText AppWorks has different licensing options."
"There is a user-based perpetual license."
"The licensing cost varies based on several factors, such as the size of the customer and the domain URL."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Management (BPM) solutions are best for your needs.
883,692 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
25%
Computer Software Company
12%
Insurance Company
6%
Government
6%
Insurance Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Government
8%
Performing Arts
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business43
Midsize Enterprise15
Large Enterprise29
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Large Enterprise3
 

Questions from the Community

How does Bonita compare with Camunda Platform?
One of the things we like best about Bonita is that you can create without coding - it is a low-code platform. With Bonita, you can build the entire mechanism using the GUI, it’s that simple. You c...
Which do you prefer - Appian or Camunda Platform?
Appian is fast when building simple to medium solutions. This solution offers simple drag-and-drop functionality with easy plug-and-play options. The initial setup was seamless and very easy to imp...
Which would you choose - Camunda Platform or Apache Airflow?
Camunda Platform allows for visual demonstration and presentation of business process flows. The flexible Java-based option was a big win for us and allows for the integration of microservices very...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OpenText AppWorks?
From an enterprise point, their pricing is a little bit crazy because they don't have a SaaS model. They have to go with a perpetual model, which makes it look crazy initially. But over a period, i...
What needs improvement with OpenText AppWorks?
They can improve the UI capability. Recently, they launched a low-code platform, called entity modeling, which they can enhance further. It would be beneficial if OpenText ( /products/data-express-...
What is your primary use case for OpenText AppWorks?
We primarily use OpenText AppWorks ( /products/opentext-appworks-reviews ) for automating supply chain-related problems, vendor process automations, and invoice automations. We have our own product...
 

Also Known As

Camunda BPM
No data available
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

24 Hour Fitness, Accruent, AT&T Inc., Atlassian, CSS Insurance, Deutsche Telekom, Generali, Provinzial NordWest Insurance Services, Swisscom AG, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, VHV Group, Zalando
Red Deer County, DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance, Bangkok Airways, PBS, CIZ (Netherlands Ministry of Health), The Dutch Ministry of Defence, Mercer
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda vs. OpenText Process Automation and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
883,692 professionals have used our research since 2012.