Camunda Reviews

We leverage Camunda for two different use cases in Santander Brazil. I used and we used to have an orchestration flow for processing new credit approvals. Once the customer requested a new credit on the Santander mobile app, they received the confirmation instantly, online, but asynchronously, we had several updates and documentation to prepare in order to make back-office processes complete. The customer received the instant confirmation, but we used to have a long-running process with several steps running in parallel and asynchronously, and those steps were orchestrated through Camunda. That was one use case, basically API orchestration in an asynchronous process with no human interaction.

We leveraged Camunda for the back-office processes for Santander Esfera, which is a loyalty program from Santander in Brazil. It is mainly a marketplace where customers can use loyalty points to redeem products. The order management process for that marketplace used to run through Camunda as well, leveraging APIs and in some cases, handling exceptions and human interaction.

Camunda's support for BPMN 2.0 is a great advantage because it allows us to have a common language to discuss technology and business in the same perspective. This capability used to allow us to anticipate issues and discussions with the business and product teams.

Since they are basically a fork from Activiti, which was a lightweight architecture that would allow us to run the process in a way we used to call the process API or a headless process. There was no need to deploy and run heavy and large tools and frameworks and middlewares, allowing us to embed the process engine inside our Java applications. That was another advantage, and it worked fairly well with cloud environments. The limitation they have with transactional databases that ultimately they were able to get rid of when they launched Zeebe was not really an issue for us. We did not have the scale and transaction volume that would make a need for such a high throughput environment. The standard or original Camunda deployment with a transactional database was more than enough for our use cases.

The learning curve for understanding how it works and deploying the first processes, especially for those people who have a background in Java, seemed to be a really fast-paced adoption for us. When we compared with other process automation tools such as Pega and IBM BPM, Camunda seemed a better approach for us.

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.

With Camunda they have a tool called Cockpit. We measured the time for each step individually because each activity in the process was an API call to an external API in a different legacy system. We used to track the performance and other metrics on those specifically. We were not really concerned about the performance on the process itself because it was super simple, super straightforward, and it did not present itself as a bottleneck, nor did we feel it was adding additional time in the execution. For us, the process itself was fairly seamless.

Camunda integrates well. They have that REST layer, REST APIs layer that makes it easy to integrate and make it part of a microservices ecosystem and APIs. That worked pretty well. We had some specific processes that were API orchestration processes, and the starting of the process was an API call directly through the Camunda engine. It played fairly seamless with no big issues on that deployment.

The support for Camunda is great. The team is very responsive. They really understand deeply and in detailed fashion the solution. Any issue you have, they answer back right away. For the support, they made a great job. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate them a 10 for support.

Positive

We purchased the license for Camunda. It was not simple, and at the end of the day, it is an expensive tool. I think for enterprises, it pays itself pretty well, but for startups and teams that are trying to make some tests and understand if the tool is the best solution for their specific scenarios, the pricing model right now is a concern.

I could not even purchase a version straight from their portal. I had to contact sales and then fill out a form, a representative team in Brazil received the form but did not get in touch. It is not really self-service, and I would prefer to have something where you can just put your credit card and use the tool as you want. That lack of transparency is an issue for us right now.

When we compared Camunda to other options for running back-office processes at Santander Brazil, those credit processes have very large profit margins. So any tool running on those processes would be of good return. When compared to Pega and IBM, we made the bet for the cost of development. With IBM specifically, we had the license already because we had other tools and contracts. But the development was not as straightforward, and the running infrastructure costs for running and setting up the tool was not cheap. It was more expensive than running the process embedded in our Java applications, the way we did with Camunda. For the total cost of ownership, Camunda seemed to be the best option, but it is not cheap.

I would rate Camunda a 7 out of 10. It is a great tool with great support, though licensing is not so good, and evolution-wise, they are not investing as much as they should. I do not think Zeebe is a no-brainer evolution for Camunda as the two products are very different.

Camunda is used for process automation, which is quite effective.

I appreciate how seamlessly Camunda can be integrated into other systems, making integration very straightforward.

Another feature I value is the intuitiveness of BPMN that allows you to create your UI without needing a developer, which is very helpful.

Overall, business processing with Camunda is not very complex. However, you need to think it through and know your processes, as the tool itself is very usable.

There is some confusion when deploying new models because you have to explicitly specify only the new model. Previously, you would simply deploy only the model you were working on, and other models in the overall development would not be deployed. I find this current process a bit tedious.

Additionally, the overall downloadability of the code is difficult because you cannot do this centrally for the entire model, which results in errors that require you to download it piece by piece.

I have been using this solution for about two years.

Regarding stability, I would rate it at about a 10, as it is very stable with minimal downtime, bugs, or glitches.

Regarding scalability, I would rate it at a 10, as it is very scalable for our needs.

I would rate the technical support for Camunda at an eight on a scale of 1 to 10.

I cannot comment on how Camunda compares to other solutions or vendors such as Appian, Bizagi, or Pega at this time since I have not had as much experience with those vendors.

I have seen a return on investment where we have fewer resources in development because of Camunda. This saves us approximately 15% in development resources.

Regarding pricing, I would say it is expensive, but it still falls within the margin of the norm. However, the pricing model is rather intransparent. I think it has improved in recent years. The previous pricing model was rather intransparent and difficult to understand how it fit together. The new model is more transparent, though it could provide a bit more clarity in explaining how it is structured.

Camunda is anonymous, or at least that is what I have found, which is perfect for those who require that level of privacy.

I currently only use AI or the AI agents in Camunda at a test level.

Camunda is enterprise-level and has approximately 10,000 users.

I would absolutely recommend Camunda. I think that a proof of concept is an excellent idea. It is also crucial to ensure you have all your stakeholders on board and do not exclude anyone because there are cross-use possibilities throughout the entire process with Camunda. Making sure everybody understands what it can do greatly ensures the success of the project you implement later. I would rate this review overall at a 9.

I have been using Camunda for five years. My use case involves BPMN and workflow automation for onboarding corporate customers and lending workflows.

Regarding AI agents or AI in Camunda, we are currently in the inception phase. It is not yet used in production, but we are in the architecture approval stage, so it is not yet live.

The best features and what I appreciate most about Camunda are the simplicity in using BPMN representations and the framework overall. Camunda provides excellent tools, including the modeler, web apps for application administration and process monitoring, and the ability to generate reports using Camunda Optimize. These are the main features we use and why we were attracted to Camunda.

Camunda is very capable of running complex orchestrations and end-to-end business processes. The lending use case is somewhat complex, and Camunda made it very easy and handy to implement.

Camunda's ability to observe and control processes at runtime is very good and perfect. All of these capabilities can be used in Camunda in production, allowing us to monitor and observe runtime processes.

Camunda handles long-running processes very well. We have processes that might be stuck for months, and Camunda works on them without any issues.

The latest feature is Process OS. The idea is very good, but it still needs more elaboration on how it operates and how it will help the business and technical aspects. This needs more demonstration because it is not easy to understand Process OS.

I have been using Camunda for almost five years.

Approximately 5,000 users use Camunda.

The return on investment I see is almost 40 to 50%, and I am looking forward to investing more.

Camunda is fairly priced at a mid-level. It is not cheap, and it is not that much expensive.

When we started working with Camunda, we had a consultant who helped us compare Camunda with most of the solutions in the market. At that time, Camunda was the best choice due to the usability and simplicity it offered.

Camunda is deployed as an on-premises solution. It was purchased directly through Camunda itself, not through a vendor or partner. Maintaining Camunda is easy and can be achieved in a straightforward way. I would recommend Camunda to others looking to implement this product, and they should consider doing a proof of concept. I would give this product a rating of 9 out of 10.

Camunda is focused on workflow automation and decision automation. We are using this in networks and for change management, assurance automation, and for cybersecurity automation.

In my opinion, the best features of Camunda are found in Cawemo, where we are forced to describe and specify what we are doing, enabling us to automate our processes. This is the most important thing, as we need to document what the business requires and make it zero touch. It is the magic.

Regarding orchestrating complex end-to-end business processes, we use Camunda especially for complex cases but also for simple ones. If we have sub-processes, we leverage Camunda to manage the complexity, including DMN decisions.

The coexistence that Camunda allows is important because we are connected, using it as an orchestrator for domain controllers and various automation platforms, both legacy and new, ensuring we are independent and can operate across domains.

In terms of areas for improvement, we are struggling with organizing the BPMN workflows. It would be great to have a structure, repository, or library to manage the hundreds or thousands of BPMNs, as finding the right BPMN in Cawemo or linking it to a business process information portal is currently difficult.

I have been working with Camunda for seven years. We started back in 2019.

We have encountered issues with Optimize, as its performance in version 7 is not what we expect, causing some trouble along the way.

For stability, most use cases depend on the workflow engine with Cockpit, which is stable about 98% of the time, and I would rate stability a nine.

I would rate the technical support for Camunda an eight.

Overall, deploying Camunda is not complex. Our admins know how to manage version 7, and while they are learning about version 8, I think they have only needed to make some optimizations and that in general, deployment is not a big deal.

At the moment, we are using Camunda version 7 and are waiting for version 8. In the meantime, we are focusing on the agents part, aiming to use agents as we use scripts or service tasks and APIs, allowing us to implement agents for very complex decisions using a digital twin for effective communication with humans.

As for the return on investment, we work cross-functionally within different silos and processes, with outcomes varying widely. It can range from a one-time job not yielding good business cases to cases we repeat thousands of times, which generates significant value.

Regarding pricing, I believe it is relative to the business value. While it might be too expensive for smaller business use cases, if we can automate and have high-value cases, then Camunda's pricing makes sense, although it is not a universal solution, as it depends on the business value.

When comparing Camunda with other solutions such as Appian, Pega, and Bizagi, we conducted an assessment and have different solutions across various businesses and countries. For us, Camunda is the best choice as it fits more generically, connecting business and technical teams effectively.

I expect that a few hundred users are using the solution currently, and we aim for that number to increase. I would recommend Camunda to other users because we consistently suggest it to different businesses within our organization and across various countries, promoting the exchange of solutions. I would rate this review an eight overall.

My clients' use cases involve automating processes like BPM and agentic orchestration. I wish I could find a client that wants to do agentic orchestration. When I first used Camunda, I started by modeling BPMN and DMN models. I did a very big project for a client where we effectively automated their whole accounting within the purchasing software as an add-on. The benefit of using Camunda was having a visualization of how the accounting rules and regulations were implemented. From my background as a German tax consultant, I understand accountancy rules, and therefore was able to use Camunda to build all of that myself within the framework of BPMN and DMN.

The best features in Camunda that come to mind are the incredible development of the functionalities. When we started the project, we were beginning with brand new Camunda 8. It was all very new and fresh. During the course of the project, which took two years plus, Camunda just improved and added very useful features that made my life much easier. I am impressed with the speed of the development and the quality of the development. The other thing that stands out completely is the customer support. If you run into an issue either on your own because you made a mistake in the modeling, they are very quick to help and very helpful. The customer support is outstanding.

In my project, the deployment of Camunda was all cloud-based. I assume it was AWS. For German companies, it is always very important that it is a German cloud provider.

In Camunda, areas that have room for improvement include the process OS they are working on, and they have gotten better on that. I am not an IT person, and the setup that we had during my project was very helpful for me to put me into a position to develop a solution on my own, which Camunda off the shelf does not do easily. I am not sure if that use case makes sense for them or if I am asking for something impossible or if that is even the space that they want to be in. I always need an IT person to build me a setup so I can go on and use Camunda's modeler to make processes run and decision models run on their own and also for the agentic features. The setup, the way it is right now, is the best setup that is useful because at a certain point, you always need the IT person. You need the developer to make sure that the technical aspects of whatever you are building are functioning properly because I do not know how to do that.

I started using Camunda in late twenty twenty one.

In terms of product stability on a scale from one to ten, I would rate it as nine.

When it comes to scalability, I would rate it as ten.

On a scale from one to ten, I rate the technical support of Camunda as ten.

When comparing Camunda with other solutions, my experience with other vendors is mainly with Signavio, which was bought by SAP. I think we seem to have a bit of lag after being acquired by SAP. They have slowed down their development or have focused on features that are not really useful to me. While Signavio got worse and worse, Camunda got better and better. The speed of development and being cutting edge with technology has always impressed me. I would love to have more opportunities to find clients that want to build Camunda projects with me.

Regarding deployment in Camunda, I would say it felt really simple. As I mentioned, I am not the tech person, so it was a colleague that set all that up. The outcome of that project was that the person I worked with was working for a smaller software development company. After the project, he joined Camunda to set up a separate offering within Camunda to integrate it with an SAP background, and that made it pretty easy to deploy. The amazing thing for me was how easy it was to deploy new processes and changes in the process models. That was super easy, super efficient, and super quick. If you can change the content of your solution by amending one or two BPMN models, deploying those BPMN models to production, and then the new process, the content of the software has been changed by someone not a developer within a matter of minutes, that is very impressive.

For my big project, those were not long-running processes, but I think Camunda should manage that very well because their whole suite enables that, especially to look at every instance of the process and see where that is within the process, what stage it is at, and which actions are still pending. You can see all of that, so that is basically not an issue. It is working very well.

Regarding pricing, I think Camunda has a pricing model that only works for bigger companies. They are not looking at mid-tier companies or smaller entities like SMEs. Maybe the larger end of SMEs would be potential customers, but normally, they are looking at the big-ticket corporates because of their pricing. I do not know if it is just not possible to run the whole environment at a rate that would be affordable. It would be interesting if it was possible. For the project that I was working on, they were offering us a trial period for free, while other companies wanted quite a bit of money just for the proof of concept, where Camunda was very affordable. I think Camunda is fine price-wise but unfortunately a bit too expensive for smaller companies. That makes sense. The pricing depends on the circumstances. In my project, we were working with a big enterprise corporate. There is a lot of potential to help SMEs, and those are not in the pricing target range of Camunda at the moment. I do not know if that is ever going to change, whereas they just see the opportunities in corporates because that is where the impact of whatever you are building is much bigger. The price is always acceptable if you can create an amount of savings that is substantial; then the price is not the issue. But if you are a smaller company, then the savings automatically cannot be that big if you improve your processes, and then the pricing becomes more important.

I have not personally implemented an AI agent in Camunda, but what I have seen in their demos and how they are able to demo that live on stage is very impressive. I would love to have a project where a client is willing to use the agentic AI and help them set that up and build that out. Also, the process OS, that is the new thing they are doing. I would love to be involved in a project about that, but I myself have no proper use case for that as a freelance consultant on my own.

I have been recommending Camunda since the first time I have used it, so I would always recommend it. Unfortunately, some of my clients do not have the budget or the strategic potential to use it. Mostly, it is a budget constraint, especially at the moment with many companies just not willing to spend. I rate this review overall as a ten out of ten.

Camunda is used for workflow digitalization, which I would call business process orchestration. I do use AI or AI agents with my people and systems, but not within Camunda as of now.

The best features of Camunda include the way it integrates into existing application landscapes and the stability. My thoughts on orchestrating complex end-to-end business processes with Camunda are definitely positive, as it can handle every process, especially within the financial context.

Camunda can orchestrate the systems we already run without forcing us to replace or migrate them, which is one of the major advantages I have mentioned. With Camunda, it works very well for long-running processes, so it keeps us updated with full status and visibility.

The area where we are struggling with Camunda is currently the Optimize module, which does not have all the features that we need for fully-fledged process analytics.

Regarding maintenance, I would say it is currently not so easy, especially since we do this on-premises and our IT team is struggling with migrating it to OpenShift.

I have been working with Camunda since 2022, so for four years.

My thoughts on the stability of Camunda are that we do have downtimes, but they are usually not caused by Camunda, so I think the general stability is good. I would rate it a nine.

Currently, we have about 700 users using Camunda. Camunda is definitely scalable for our company and business needs, and I would rate it a ten.

When I rate the technical support for Camunda from one to ten, I would give them an eight.

When it comes to return on investment for Camunda, regarding process lead time reduction, we see something between 50 to 80 percent easily. On average over all the processes that we have, I would say it is between 5 to 10 percent.

My thoughts on the pricing of Camunda are that it is worth its price, with a touch towards expensive. On pricing, I would rate Camunda as a seven.

In comparing Camunda with other vendors, we have not reassessed since we decided to go for Camunda, so we basically use it exclusively, making it difficult for me to answer.

I can definitely recommend Camunda, especially within the financial industry. I would rate this review a nine overall.

We use Camunda for network orchestration, which is a combination of BPMN and DMN that we use in our implementation.

The best features of Camunda are the design time and run time aspects, as you can visualize the whole process and then integrate your network SMEs or allow business design and developers to collaborate on the workflow. This is the best aspect because everything is visual and leaves little room for error in terms of how requirements are being interpreted.

Camunda has room for improvement, and I believe some of this feedback has already been taken up in Camunda 8. We are currently running a Camunda 7 installation, and the external task management has room for improvement. With Camunda 8 moving to gRPC calls, I think that will help with the issues we have seen. For our implementation, the only issue we have encountered is that when it comes to scaling with external tasks, it struggles on Camunda 7.

I have been working with Camunda for almost five and a half to six years.

The stability of Camunda I would rate about a nine out of ten, as it is fairly stable. We have not had any issues; the only issues we have seen are around our own database or RDBMS layer, which is not really related to Camunda directly.

I would rate the technical support an eight.

It is easy to deploy Camunda 7. Camunda 8 is a bit more challenging, but the support we receive as part of the enterprise license helps us work around the problems we are facing. Camunda 7 is definitely straightforward, which is what we are currently running, and we are making progress with Camunda 8. It is obviously a different model of installation and how the services have been split, but with support, I think it is pretty straightforward.

The return on investment I see is probably somewhere around fifteen to twenty.

When we compare Camunda with other solutions such as Pega and Bizagi, we evaluated alternatives five to six years ago. Within our organization, there were other workflow engines in use. The benefit of Camunda for us at that point was that we started with the community edition, and there was an Open Network Orchestration Platform, which was an open source project for doing network orchestration that had a Camunda engine embedded as part of their framework. This is how we became aware of Camunda, and because of the ONAP aspect, we could literally plug and play a lot of code from the ONAP foundation into what we had to implement. We started with open source and then moved to the enterprise license. It is easy to start up, conduct your POCs, and get it into production, which is a differentiator for us against the other BPMN engines we have seen.

Our impressions of Camunda for orchestrating complex end-to-end business processes indicate that while my use case is not complex, I know other parts of our organization use it for more complex processes, so it is definitely capable of orchestrating complex processes.

We do not use the AI aspects of Camunda because we have our own AI framework.

The number of users who use Camunda directly is less than ten because we do not expose the cockpit or any of the Camunda apps directly to the end user. We have our own portal or UI from which the journeys are driven, so approximately ten users use it.

I would recommend Camunda. The approach we took was to pick the simplest use case, implement it, and learn while implementing, then think about more complex scenarios. On the enterprise support side, we used it more to review our models. Our development team writes the Java delegates and the actual code behind it, but the main benefits we see are reviewing the BPMNs and the use of external tasks versus other best practices. That is what I would definitely recommend people leverage if they are deciding to go ahead with Camunda as their workflow engine.

Camunda handles long running processes that run for days, weeks, or months. We have processes that run for months, and ultimately it depends on your implementation, but it is more than capable of handling long running processes and we do not see any issues.

I would rate this review a nine out of ten.

Our use case for Camunda is primarily workflow automation and rule management, utilizing both DMN cases.

In my opinion, the best features of Camunda include the data scientist side where we have Optimize that can help us analyze the processes and see where the heat map is, which is useful in everyday business to know regarding the volumes and workflows that are taking more time than expected.

The overall solution with Camunda is very convenient regarding the connectors with Salesforce, Workday, and other tools, which helps expedite projects and achieve good returns on investment, meaning that under six or nine months, you can implement a project. For example, we started a project in January and delivered it in May, something traditional development cannot provide.

I see improvements with Camunda mainly in quality and service. I feel the best return on investment is less work for internal teams and enhanced value for end customers, allowing less experienced personnel to effectively work with Camunda and understand their responsibilities, alleviating dependence on specific knowledgeable employees.

In Camunda, I believe the process mining side has room for improvement. Before modeling or implementing a new process, understanding existing workflows in the company is vital, suggesting that process mining would be beneficial starting from a previous step.

In addition to process mining, there are technical demands from internal teams wanting to execute queries on SGBD or within our elastic database in Camunda. Although I feel a database demand may not be as relevant since a performant tool relies on having a modern database, improvements on the .NET field are desired, as existing connectors are supported by editors while others come from the community. It would be helpful to have supported .NET connectors by the editor.

My experience with Camunda spans three or four years.

For stability, I would rate it a nine, noting that while several releases occur every six months, which can be difficult for some customers, it remains very stable. Frequent updates necessitate staying up to date.

From one to ten, I would rate the technical support for Camunda a nine. The support is excellent, but communication barriers may arise for French customers due to the need for English during technical issues.

As a partner, we implement Camunda for customers and gather feedback on their satisfaction and project outcomes.

In our organization, we have about 30 specialists working with Camunda, mainly focusing on ETI companies, typically below 5,000 employees, but we also handle projects with CAC 40 companies and public firms on the stock market.

Regarding pricing for Camunda, I believe it is cheap when considering the cost of the volumes, but planning constraints are crucial. Regulatory changes or implementation needs should not take years to resolve, as the value is not just the license cost per number of cases run in the workflow, but how you achieve service enhancement for your company.

Comparing Camunda to vendors such as Pega or Bizagi is challenging. I find Camunda to be particularly trendy, with many coming projects and a strong sales team, positioning it to boom in 2025 and 2026. Other tools do not share the same dynamic, which is why I consider Camunda agile.

We do not use AI agents broadly, but when implementing them, they help us analyze cases and understand customer intent through some first-step analysis, with the last decision remaining human. Engaging users remains difficult, since a workflow tool is already a revolution and AI adds complexity in understanding its decision-making process.

With Camunda, it is very easy to observe and control processes during runtime. Implementing transversal processes requires company-level engagement, but once established, transformation becomes straightforward. The challenge lies in human engagement and internal communication to convey forthcoming changes. However, Camunda offers smooth and visually appealing tools that are comprehensible and well-presented compared to other solutions.

I would recommend implementing Camunda, advising to work with a partner, as it fosters an easier acceptance of change among internal teams when an external company navigates the transition. Regarding communication, having a contractor to lead the changes simplifies the process. I give this review a rating of 10.

I do not use Camunda agents personally, but I am aware that people within the organization have started using them.

I find it valuable that Camunda is built on open standards such as BPMN and connects openly with different models, agents, and frameworks, as it does not limit me in terms of skills. It allows for easier access to resources or people in the market, and it will be easier for them to learn from their past experiences. This makes things straightforward.

The areas in Camunda that have room for improvement are primarily the front-end capabilities. However, we had a discussion with Brandon, the Camunda founder, who highlighted that this is not his focus. I think if Camunda can improve the overall front-end capabilities, that will help them. They have also pushed for Camunda being able to extend its forms using different applications.

I have been working with Camunda for two years.

Regarding stability, we have not had a solution running heavily in production, but so far, I would rate it as fairly stable. This is not a production environment; it is more of a QA prod environment. Although we do have a production environment, we do not have a solution running there, so I cannot rate it fairly based on production performance. Based on what we have tested, it is quite stable.

I would say that we are looking at having more than a thousand users using the solution.

I note that we have not tested scalability very much, as we do not have a product in production right now.

I rate their technical support as a nine; it is good.

I find that pricing is not inexpensive based on the fact that enterprise applications can easily generate millions of process instances. Camunda charges per process instance, which is a constraint compared to other engines. It is different in that regard.

I compare Camunda with other solutions or vendors such as Pega, IBM, or Bizagi and find that technically, it is actually good and almost in the lead. However, the drawback is the two things I mentioned: the financial model of licensing or charging, and the front-end capabilities.

I find that it is easy to maintain Camunda because we have already upgraded and patched it with ease, so it is quite straightforward and does not require days of planning and preparation.

Overall, I rate Camunda a score of eight.

Our primary use of ECS is to host all our services in the cloud. We work in the legal sector, and our workloads are often deployed on Fargate containers or Azure containers to abstract the hardware.

EC2 makes scaling horizontally incredibly easy, especially when working under the ECS service. Nowadays, I almost never need to create instances of virtual machines because most workloads can be deployed on Fargate containers. This abstraction of hardware reduces the need to think about it. 

My costs are reduced. Working with ECS and Fargate doesn't require saving processing units for idle services. Previously, using EC2 required keeping entire virtual machines running, however, Fargate eliminates this cost. ECS also allows for horizontal scalability with thresholds that can be configured for CPU or memory.

There is an issue where, in some situations, I need to scale up by observing both CPU and memory usage of containers, yet under the current options available at Amazon, this is not possible. I have to choose between monitoring CPU or memory to scale my solution. Not every software is built for deployment as a container service, although the current architecture trend is changing this.

I host everything in the cloud, and I have over ten years of experience. I use EC2 as a hosting technology and have been using it for a long time.

My services running on ECS are also on Azure Container Service. I have never experienced any flicker or downtime. These are highly available services. It's very stable.

ECS and Fargate make horizontal scalability very easy. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. It allows for easy scaling, especially with ECS service configurations.

The AWS Support is incredible. They always invite us for meetings to showcase new solutions. I have a very good relationship with AWS, Microsoft, and GCP for support. AWS provides the best support, followed by Microsoft, and then Google.

Positive

Setting up ECS is simple, although there are some tricks involved. I usually have to define private and public networks and bind all related services. It's easy but not super straightforward. I had to repeat the process two or three times before I could teach others how to configure it.

Hosting services on Fargate reduces our processing costs since we don't need to keep virtual machines running for workloads anymore. This results in cost reductions.

AWS pricing is very competitive compared to Azure and cheap compared to Google. For some services, such as hosting databases, Google is really expensive.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate ECS a ten out of ten. It's an incredible service, and I prefer it over Kubernetes. I suggest checking the integration of software for deployment in a serverless environment. Some software can be challenging to deliver this way.