What advice do you have for others considering Camunda Platform?

I have been working for multiple organizations that use Camunda BPM since 2015 and the product has been improvised a lot. Many new features have been added to the product which would help the organization to modernize its existing monolithic applications and migrate to a cloud platform with Camunda's microservices orchestration. It also helps the projects to customize the existing application in a much better way. Camunda 8 has even better features when compared to version 7.xx which would allow the product to compete with the existing no-code/low-code platforms.

I would recommend Camunda because Java is well-received and encourages clean code standards. The tool's visual appeal makes it accessible to both developers and business analysts. BPMN notation familiarity is a plus. I'd rate the solution nine out fo ten.

Camunda's platform could benefit from better UI for low-code development. Other competitor platforms have more comprehensive tools for deployment and development. I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

The number of people required to maintain the tool depends on the application in which it is embedded. We might not need many people for maintenance. Our in-house team resolves all our issues, so we do not have to contact support. There is a lot of documentation available. They are very good. The solution has BPMN and DMN. DMN is very powerful when modeling business decisions. The rules engine is very good. I will recommend it for the rules engine. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. My advice: New buyers should definitely look at this option. It's a good option as the product is technically sound. There are quite a few customers running on the platform and good reference customers. There is a community forum, and the documentation is readily available. So, if you are investigating options, it should definitely be on your list, if not at the number one spot. Recent trends around workflow automation: We see a lot of cloud SaaS solutions coming up with their own workflow platforms. For example, SAP or Salesforce also come with workflow systems. You need to consider that these platforms have embedded options where you have no choice but to use them. But if you have spots where you do your own development or there is a package that uses Camunda, the interesting part will be what steps they provide to work with the data and AI to make the solution even more attractive.

It's not possible for us to define a process as deep as it is necessary to automate it. We tested but did not use DMN capabilities. I will recommend the solution to others. I just finished studying business process management. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. I'd recommend it if you're currently paying a high annual fee for a solution like IBM BPM. Camunda is much more affordable while still offering a strong SLA agreement and security. It's worth trying – perhaps initially with a smaller process in your organization. You could even test it on a UAT environment before going live. I often recommend this approach to clients, as it's a good solution for many use cases.

Setting up or translating business processes using the Camunda platform is easy. It provides flexibility for integrating with different third-party systems. We have implemented the product to optimize internal business processes and improve API communication between different units. I rate it an eight out of ten.

I recommend using the product. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

Camunda's website is filled with a lot of knowledgeable stuff, so it is important to get in touch with a person from Camunda. By just going through the website Camunda, it is possible to strengthen your understanding of the fundamentals of the product. Camunda also provides free courses to those who want to learn more about the product. I rate the overall tool a seven and a half out of ten.

Camunda is deployed on the cloud in our organization. I would recommend Camunda for low to medium-scale businesses. I would not recommend the solution to high-scale businesses because of the lack of documentation. Camunda is the right choice for long-running business processes instead of ones that can be finished in a few seconds or minutes. Overall, I rate Camunda an eight out of ten.

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.

We intend to do a few things with the product, and I am unsure if it would raise or drop the product's rating in the future. So far, considering the modeling purposes for which we used the tool in the last month, I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

Overall, I rate Camunda Platform a seven or eight out of ten.

I recommend developing their expertise and skills with BPM. They should have a deep understanding of architecture. Starting with good releases is important because it allows users to become familiar with powerful tools and solutions. If you encounter a real problem, it is crucial to have a well-configured environment, whether it's a web server or any other production platform. Implementing BPM with good practices and optimization is key. Overall, Camunda can be a powerful tool to work with when used in an optimized and well-implemented manner. Overall, I would rate Camunda Platform an eight out of ten.

Having learned about BPM, I gained valuable insights from one of the key contributors to the ONG group, a prominent founder of the organization who is also involved in the development of Camunda. Based on my experience, I would strongly suggest this solution to anyone seeking to implement a robust Camunda Platform. My recommendation is to ensure proper documentation of the initial processes. This is because one of the challenges faced by our clients is the lack of documentation for their processes. The challenge lies not only in defining policies but also in documenting end-to-end processes. During the documentation process, it becomes apparent that some knowledge is retained by individuals rather than being stored in a centralized procedure. Before considering automation, I recommend prioritizing process documentation. This ensures that all critical information and expertise are centralized and easily accessible, resulting in a more successful automated implementation. I would rate Camunda Platform a six out of ten.

I am very much inspired by its microservice architecture. 

The only negative point was the performance. If a company wants to use it with small or medium-sized systems that do not need a lot of performance, it would be a good choice.

It's important to have the customers on board and work closely with them. That's because if they don't get what you are doing, you will not have customers. It's very important to work closely with the customers to be successful. It's important to make sure that customers understand what the platform does and how it's achieving. The training part and creating awareness are important. You need to create awareness about automation and what it can provide to customers. Most of the time, people are too busy to do any automation, even though it will help them in the long run. What I learned is that you can't delegate it to a team. You have to be hands-on with the team and help them to make the automation. That is important. From the Camunda perspective, you can start with the open-source version, and then at a later stage, evaluate if you require the enterprise features for your use case. When it comes to connectors, we sometimes use the implementation provided by the community, but so far, we have not used the standard connectors provided with Camunda because, in Swiss Re, there are a lot of custom implementations, and sometimes, the connectors don't work straight away. So, we usually implement our own workers. I would rate it an 8 out of 10. Once it has the improvements we need, I can give it a 10.

Take a look at their co-founder and CTO, Bernd Ruecker's, blog. He has a lot of good write-ups about the platform where he explains the technical architecture. He talks about how to do performance benchmarking. Another good piece of advice is to leverage the Camunda community and forum. Their team is very active on the public forum and they respond to your questions within a day, most of the time. They give very to-the-point answers. That is a really helpful resource. They also have a good set of tutorials on BPMN in what they call the Camunda Academy. It's worth taking a look at that when you are adopting the Zeebe workflow engine, which is their primary workflow engine. One of the important things that we want to deliver is enabling business, developers, and operations. It's important that our non-technical stakeholders don't have to get into the nitty-gritty details of technical implementations. They can have a bird's-eye view of what's happening in a process, and they can suggest or even extend a process by themselves and then hand it over to us as a requirements document. That's the direction we really want to take. So far, the product team has been very enthusiastic about it. They like it. Camunda uses a language for modeling called BPMN and it doesn't require you to be a coder or an engineer. It's a simple drag-and-drop tool. It's really cool and it helps our stakeholders to be involved in working with workflows. There is a bit of a learning curve with BPMN. It's an industry standard, not something proprietary to Camunda, but Camunda hosts an online academy where they have tutorials about it. They have videos and free courses on how to use BPMN. That helps out in the onboarding of users. We have been using it for a little less than a year, so our entire organization is not using it. We are really into building our experience with Camunda by applying it to a few use cases. As we see more use cases in other parts of the organization, what we have built over this past year as templates—as reusable software—can be leveraged so that they don't have to set up everything from scratch on their own.

The most important thing would be to do a proof of concept before going too far. Some tools are very stable and you can go with them right away, but with Camunda, just because there is so much to know, it is better to do a proof of concept before going all in. The connectors provided by Camunda can be enough. It depends on your use case. By default, there is an HTTP connector, and there is also a SOAP connector. It is easy to use the connectors. They provide a base connector, and you can build it more. In our case, we had to go a little further and develop plugins in Java, which was a bit of an issue because it is not our main technology stack. We don't develop much in Java. So, there was a learning curve for developers, but overall, it went well. I know that Camunda offers a user interface for people when they need to interact with it. We didn't use it in our case because we found the user interface too simple. It was not providing us with enough information. and the other thing was that if a user is working in system A and had to interact with Camunda, he had to leave his context to go to system B and do the task. So, in our case, we decided to integrate it into the same system to provide all the information that a user needs to accomplish a task. So, it is a bit limited in that aspect, but the fact is that when you use Camunda, what you're trying to achieve as a goal is to prevent people from interacting too much with the process. So, it may not be a problem if the user interface is not as rich and complex. I would rate it an eight out of ten.

I would advise comparing it with Camunda Cloud or Zeebe. If your use case allows you, go with Camunda Cloud because, this way, you can leverage this new system that has fewer scalability problems. It is not a straightforward recommendation because at least until last year, the set of features in Camunda Cloud wasn't the same as Camunda On-Premises. That's why we didn't use Camunda Cloud. We didn't use any third-party connectors. We used Camunda and then we used just the HTTP connector to orchestrate our microservices. We didn't do a direct connection from Camunda to any outside or third-party system. With Camunda, we only wanted to orchestrate our microservices, which can then connect to third-party or other systems. We wanted to keep our architecture clean, and this piece of software was used to orchestrate microservices, which was great. Camunda provides an interface where business users can create, update, and execute complex workflows, but we didn't use this feature. No one from the business side used it for creating their own processes or modifying anything. I used it only for microservices. Being able to have a diagram and being able to have a business discussion by using the diagram as a reference was good. It was very interesting because we could have all the teams and all the specialists on the same page, but I didn't have anyone from the business side or operation side directly using or connecting with Camunda. It hasn't reduced the cost to design and implement critical processes. That's because we weren't using any other tool previously. So, I don't have a comparison. It also didn't have any effect on our TCO. We are a cloud company. We have a very modern infrastructure where everything is on Amazon. The team is very used to getting docker systems and running complex systems inside of Kubernetes. We haven't had any trouble running it. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The learning curve is a bit steep. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

If you're looking for flexibility, this is the solution. There's no super bullet that does everything but the flexibility Camuna provides is a good start. I rate this solution eight out of 10.

It is loosely coupled. Therefore, there is a lot of flexibility in the way we want to restrict the usage of Camunda. I would rate it a nine out of 10.

My advice is you have to be a bit optimistic and you need to see if this solution is the right fit. You have to determine if you are looking for a low-code platform or a headless platform. There is a misunderstanding between multiple products and the Camunda Platform being a headless BPMN, it is not a low-code platform. I rate Camunda Platform an eight out of ten.

My advice for anybody who is implementing Camunda is to pay attention to transaction integrity. The biggest lesson that I have learned from using it is to do a little bit more architectural spike work before committing to all of the development. Overall, it is a pretty good product but there is room for improvement. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

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

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

I rate Camunda a seven out of ten. I would recommend the paid version of Camunda because of the difficulties we have had with the free version. It's easy to start using, but it's difficult to make changes.

I would not recommend this solution because I did not have a good experience. I rate Camunda Platform a five out of ten.

I would rate it a seven out of 10 because the user interface lacks in some areas.

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.

If you're considering an open-source tool, I would recommend Camunda and rate it eight out of 10.

We have not yet explored all that Camunda Platform offers. We would recommend this solution to others who are considering using it. I would rate Camunda Platform a nine out of ten.

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.

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.

We are using the community edition so it is hard to ask for extra features ;-) I fully understand that if we still want to benefit from the open-source version, there has to be a paid premium version, so that the product can be further developed.

I would definitely recommend this solution, especially if they are spending a large amount of money using proprietary BPM tools, such as Pega BPM. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I would advise potential Camunda BPM customers to be patient. Perhaps all the information isn't available in one click, but it's possible to implement Camunda BPM, and it's quite flexible. It's worth a try. On a scale from one to ten, I would give Camunda BPM an eight.

My advice: try it because it's a great solution. On a scale from one to ten, I would give Camunda BPM a rating of nine. If the initial setup was easier, I would give it a ten.

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.

As a process analyst, I'm into IT development, so my advice is not to make processes highly detailed. The value added here is the freeware version that can give you the best tool to get the job done as a process analyst. I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.

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.

My advice for anybody who is considering Camunda BPM is that they implementing a PoC first. I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

My advice about Camunda is I recommend this product when it fits your needs. It is that simple. On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as a nine because it fits my demands. Of course, there is always room for improvement in the interface, or performance, and stuff like that. I hope that people will work on Camunda and within the next releases we will have more connectors, we will have a much more powerful interface, and maybe we can have a mobile app as well.

I would recommend it, as long as the business team can design the workflows, but the technical team can design the workflows. If they are technical, then I would definitely recommend it. For enterprise-grade, I would recommend looking into bigger equipment. I would rate Camunda BPM an eight out of ten.

I would rate this solution a seven out of 10.

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 are currently a startup with Insur Tech and we are sensitive to cost. It's our strategy and it is the best tool for the price at this time. What I have learned from using Camunda BPM is to keep it simple. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

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

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.

My advice to anybody who is considering this solution is to first do a proof of concept. See how it works, and see if you like it. We were able to build our rules-based API engine, and it does exactly what we wanted it to. I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We use the free version, the open-source version, but there is an Enterprise option. And the Enterprise version has heat maps so you can easily optimize complex processes on performance. You can easily see the hot spots that need to be scaled in a different manner in terms of hardware or improving your process flow. I would definitely recommend the solution to anyone. At least for the short-term. They are currently shifting towards their new product, Zeebe. We are actually currently using it already in smaller labs on smaller projects, such as modelling process flow's and micro service orchestration driving front end ui's such as digital assistants. But there is not much difference between the two so, I would definitely advise anyone starting with a BPM, in general, to start with Camunda. I found Camunda really easy to start with. I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

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're very strongly recommending Camunda BPM. It is good. It is easy. The community is good. There is a lot of support if you are stuck anywhere. You can Google it and find the answers. Many people are using Camunda BPM worldwide and finding the responses was easy. I would rate it an eight out of ten. The reason why I wouldn't rate it a 10/10 or higher is that there are some other features available within other tools that can improve the algorithms they are not aware of yet. Camunda BPM satisfies our requirements and we have been using it for a year.

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.