Camunda vs Temporal comparison

"Easy to use and easy to integrate into the products and applications we provide for our customers."

"It is quite easy to build a simple process without any knowledge of programming."

"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."

"We have been able to save costs using this solution compared to the product we used before."

"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."

"It is a scalable product. I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten."

"The modeler is useful for creating the flow. The way to access the data through their REST API is also valuable. This is what we're using right now."

"Camunda is a scalable product."

"The most valuable thing about Temporal is that we can create multiple and child workflows. We can segregate work as we want, which is good for work organization. It's also easy to maintain. We're trying to generate and fill PDF forms with custom data, including digital signatures. We call AWS and do all activities through Temporal, like calling and saving data in buckets. We do this because we have a lot of load, with multiple users requesting data. We have two types of users: admin and customer. The admin creates forms, and employees or customers fill them out. When admin gets a form, it's stored in Temporal."

"Temporal focus on developers rather than business users."

"When some jobs take a lot of time and fail midway, the solution’s retry feature automatically causes them to retry."

"Temporal provides visibility into workflow progress and analytics and supports scheduled tasks with customizable settings, making it very convenient."

"The solution's most valuable features include its ability to simplify the management of complex workflows, improve system resilience and fault tolerance, and reduce the need for extensive boilerplate code."

"It is very useful for long-running workflows."

"The most valuable feature is its ability to manage and automate workflows without manual intervention efficiently."

"The solution's most valuable feature is its ability to retry from an interrupted state."

"It lacks some preset features and configurations which would make it more plug-and-play for customers."

"The product does not have a dictionary."

"Initially, installation was challenging, but recent improvements have made it much easier."

"The initial setup can be complex for business users."

"If there were some industry templates it would have helped significantly, because it is similar to a process map for a domain. That is what we are currently creating, a domain-relevant process map."

"I'm from the .NET world and I would like to use it, rather than Java."

"The solution's pricing and scalability could be improved."

"It would be helpful to have more readily available use cases on the internet. Camunda's documentation feels less comprehensive."

"Sometimes it scales kind of badly, but it depends on the process of our products."

"One area where I think Temporal could improve is its dashboard, particularly in event tracking. Currently, the dashboard doesn't show a time-based view of events, meaning it doesn't display when an event started or went through the retry process. If this feature could be added in a future release, it would significantly enhance monitoring capabilities. Other than that, Temporal's overall performance is quite impressive, and we're confident we can migrate to the Temporal workflow."

"One issue is that we don't have enough resources in the community to get answers when we face problems. We once had a cross-cluster persistence issue, which we solved using different keys. I think Temporal is good right now, but I'm part of the community and will let you know if I think of any improvements."

"There are areas where Temporal could improve. For instance, calling multiple microservices with Temporal introduces latency due to workflow registration and analytics overhead."

"We previously faced issues with the solution's patch system."

"Temporal's debugging is a bit complex."

"While the tool can be a bit daunting initially, especially if you're not used to async programming models, it's generally a pleasure. There's always room for improvement, though. I've noticed some limitations with the .NET SDK regarding dynamic workflows, but this might have been improved in recent versions. Overall, I think Temporal could be more open about implementing features in a more—.NET-friendly way, especially in how you add workers and clients."

"One area for the product improvement is the learning curve."

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

"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."

"The price is competitive with products like Bonitasoft and RHPAM (Red Hat Process Automation Manager). We have two versions of Camunda. The first version was open source, without support, but then we got a supported version."

"Camunda has a free service as well as a commercial service. We are using the free service."

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

"We're using the free version. We used the Enterprise version for some time. If I compare free versus what we paid at that time, the Enterprise version costs a lot. For the additional functionality that we got with the Enterprise version, it was too costly."

"Camunda is a cheaply priced product, making it one of its major USPs."

"The savings weren't as big as we initially expected, but they were pretty great from a developer's perspective."

"Temporal is a free, open-source tool."

"The tool is open source under the MIT license, so there are no hidden fees. You can freely use everything on their GitHub and Docker images."

"It is worth the price."