Camunda Reviews

I worked on a project in Pakistan. For this project, I replicated processes on Camunda, including BPDs (Business Process Diagrams) and activities. Currently, I am working on the forms aspect of the implementation.

I appreciate Camunda's strong SLA agreement, my current bank client required customized forms. Camunda forms are built on Angular, and I'm currently involved in a headless reporting project with Camunda.

Camunda's front end is built in Angular, while I'm integrating the Java backend services. I'll consume the Java services and handle integration with Angular on the front end.

When deploying Camunda, I prefer a headless approach. This means Camunda acts as middleware while the front end is built using a different technology. And back end will be from the different technology. 

 I've integrated a database with Camunda's process engine. This allows me to generate emails and update the database as needed.

It is very user-friendly compared to IBM BPM. It's much simpler because it doesn't have the process admin and process inspector roles and separate pages – it's more streamlined. That means even non-technical departments can use it. 

If we don't need complex, high-level workflows but just a small form-based process, Camunda can be used by any type of client – technical or non-technical.

I don't see a lot that needs improvement in the core functionality. With the on-premises version, the task list has issues, and user creation is not as straightforward as in IBM BPM with its Process Admin role. 

Camunda also lacks some of the initial documentation that helps with onboarding. I often rely on Udemy courses for help.

So, basically, on-premises user management needs improvement.

I'd recommend a feature like the Process Inspector that IBM BPM offers. This is where you can troubleshoot and manage running processes. It would be very helpful for non-technical users, as sometimes they need insight into where a process is stuck. 

Camunda Cockpit has similar functionality, but it's a bit more complex. I'm a technical person, so I understand it, but our clients are often from non-technical backgrounds. My clients are mostly common users from commerce backgrounds. 

So it would be better for Camunda to be able to easily view their processes and troubleshoot process instances.

The Process Portal in IBM BPM is basically a dashboard view. If Camunda could offer a similar dashboard for users, it would be a big benefit for their organizations.

I have been using it for six months. I use version eight. 

I would rate the stability a seven out of ten.

I would rate the scalability a five out of ten. Scalability would be improved with better documentation and resources. IBM BPM, for instance, offers extensive documentation and support teams for various issues. Camunda's documentation feels less comprehensive in comparison.

Additionally, it would be helpful to have more readily available use cases on the internet. This is important for doing POCs [Proofs of Concept] and showcasing how Camunda can be used. IBM BPM has many example use cases for systems like currency exchange or HR management. 

Camunda lacks this, often showing only very small processes that can be difficult for clients to envision within their own needs.

So, the lack of readily available use cases affects the ability of Camunda to adapt to your customer's needs.

I have experience with both IBM developer tools and Camunda. 

Due to cost considerations, we often recommend Camunda to smaller clients where IBM solutions might be too expensive in Pakistan, especially for small companies. 

I also do POCs [Proofs of Concept]. The demands I receive from customers are varied, but they want to move forward with the technology. If Camunda fulfills their requirements, they will definitely adopt it. Before Camunda, I also worked on Appian, but it wasn't as exciting as Camunda.

I'm doing a Master's in Data Science, so I know how crucial decision-making is for customers. Once my first POC is done, I'll definitely explore decision modeling. Camunda is still in its early stages in Pakistan.

There aren't as many resources in Pakistan as there should be.

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a nine out of ten, with ten being easy. Installing Camunda on your machine is incredibly easy. It's even easier than installing MS Office. I also installed IBM BPM on a virtual machine, and that took me one or two weeks to configure fully. Camunda is much simpler in comparison – the process is similar to installing MS Office.

Most customers I have are in the banking sector, so they prefer on-premises deployment. 

It takes around three days to deploy the solution because it includes things like permissions etc. Camunda is significantly quicker to deploy in comparison to IBM BPM, which takes around ten days. 

I'm a developer, not an administrator. So, I usually work with the administration team for the actual deployment. Typically, we need a few key files: one for the setup and one for the Camunda server itself. I'm familiar with the server file since I have Camunda installed for development on my own computer.

Compared to IBM BPM or Appian, Camunda's pricing is good.

Camunda is significantly cheaper than IBM BPM, especially considering the SLA agreement. Of the three products, it offers the best price-to-value ratio.

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.

We use the workflow only in Camunda. It acts as libraries for workflow visualization, focusing on automating my company's processes.

Camunda is used for process automation with the bot automation. We use API from IPT software, and Camunda serves as a service for workflows. It has improved the cost benefits on Google Cloud.

Camunda serves as an automation library and provides lightweight deployment to the cloud. The personal thing for workflow automation is significant.

Camunda needs to improve its user interface for low-code development and provide more user interface options beyond the basic workflow. It also requires further development to compete with platform features, like the deployment and development life cycle.

We started using Camunda one year ago and began implementing some processes on the platform.

Camunda has benefits concerning the cost on Google Cloud, however, we have to invest more in development for scalability.

We have used IBM BPM before, however, Camunda was adopted for certain processes. Camunda doesn't require a license and offers a free version.

Camunda is cheap because it doesn't require a license. We can use the free version and manage everything in the company.

We plan to use Camunda workflows and relate them to IBM BPM in the future.

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.

We use the product to automate our workflows. It is used for task management.

Camunda is a good product. The product has a good task management engine. Camunda has had a good impact on our operational efficiency. The integrations are getting better. It has a lot of REST APIs. We can integrate the tool via REST. It is a good feature. It's much better than what it used to be.

Camunda is Java-based. It would be better if the tool were made less reliant on Java.

I have been using the solution for four to five years.

The solution is very stable. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

The solution is very scalable. I rate the scalability an eight and a half out of ten. We have more than 100 users. I use the product twice a week.

We have used Flowable. We also used an IBM product, but it was not very good. We chose Camunda because it is more scalable. It has a smaller footprint. It is the most effective product.

The initial setup is easy. I rate the ease of setup a nine out of ten. The solution has multiple deployment options. It has its own cloud services. The deployment takes just a few hours.

We deploy the tool in-house. We've embedded it within our application. We need only one person for the deployment.

We use the free version.

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.

As a service company, we implement this product for different customers. It's quite useful in automating processes, particularly with its orchestration capabilities.

The visibility – the diagrams you create – and then being able to automate based on them are valuable features. It's easy to explain and comprehend, and the integration aspects are valuable.

Typically, the user integrates with the business applications by calling jobs using REST APIs and similar methods. When the user needs connectors to databases for fetching data – that's where it's useful. Also, until the previous version, the user could embed Camunda within other applications. That was a good feature.

The user interface is good from the development point of view. But it's not a no-code, low-code kind of thing. From a developer's perspective, it works well.

So, it might not be easy for non-technical people to use. Camunda themselves never positioned it as a tool primarily for business users. Business users could use it for the designing perspective and then hand it over to the developers.

In the latest version, there are certain workflow nodes that are missing. Camunda should bring those back, or rather, develop them quickly. We've seen some of this on their roadmap, so they're working on it.  

I have been familiar with this product for five years. 

Whatever issues we've faced, we were able to resolve on our own, so it's been good enough for us.

The open-source aspect was important to us. So Camunda has been a good fit.

We work with both the free version and the latest paid version, as well as version 7.4.

The pricing has been flexible. Overall, it's been good.

If a company has workflow automation requirements or needs orchestration, it's quite useful.

Overall, it's good and solid. At least up to version seven, which we're heavily using. Version eight is progressing, and Camunda will continue to add the things we need. I would rate it at least a nine out of ten.

I use the solution in my company for process modeling and collaborations with other users.

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the area revolving around process modeling. It is possible to take care of the process modeling with BPMN. I think the most beneficial feature of the product is that the tool serves as a process orchestration platform and also helps in the area of process automation.

Camunda should be able to automate the processes in any department, like the ones in HR that are related to procurement or any others, which are repeated in the same manner without any significant changes in the process, as it is one area where the product faces certain shortcomings.

I have been using Camunda for about three years. I am a customer of Camunda.

It is a stable solution. I have not faced any trouble when using the product in my company.

Camunda is a scalable product.

Around 10 to 15 people in my company use the product.

I have never contacted the solution's technical support.

The product's initial setup phase is difficult for beginners.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

The product's price depends on the number of processes that need to be automated or where the orchestration part needs to be used. The product is affordable for medium and large enterprises.

My company chose Camunda since we wanted a tool for process modeling with BPMN so that we could automate some of our processes.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it, as it is a simple and practical tool with powerful capabilities.

The product helps achieve operational efficiency in our company since it helps with the process modeling area. The product also helps automate and orchestrate processes effectively.

Camunda's user interface's contribution to process modeling and deployment stems from the fact that it is pretty intuitive and simple.

It is easy for someone to learn to use Camunda.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

We use it in the banking sector for a specific project. The platform aids in optimizing and automating business processes, enhancing operational efficiency, and ensuring seamless workflow management

Its flexibility stands out as the most valuable feature. I am content with its courses and the support team.

When addressing a complex and extensive process, the domain it belongs to, be it banking, healthcare, or HR, requires widespread access.

We have been working with it for more than five years.

I would rate its stability capabilities ten out of ten.

It offers excellent scalability. I would rate it ten out of ten. Our clientele comprises enterprises, medium-sized businesses, and small organizations.

Technical support from Comodo is accessible exclusively with the enterprise version, and it is highly commendable. They offer two support options, including the provision of an individual technical support manager. Our customers benefit from having personal vendors in support, capable of communicating in their native languages. For instance, if operating in Ukraine, clients can expect excellent service with a personal manager fluent in Ukrainian. I would rate it ten out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward. I would rate it ten out of ten.

When it came to deployment, there were readily available options, along with clear instructions tailored for an open environment. We have it deployed on cloud as well as on-premise. The deployment timeframe varies, measured in hours or days, contingent upon specific customer requirements. Frequently, we initiate development, reproduction, and production environments. However, delays may arise as these environments can differ slightly, necessitating additional setup time.

ROI is influenced by the quality and usage. While the pricing structure is crucial, making an error in the planning can lead to substantial expenses. However, based on the feedback from our customers, they express satisfaction with Camunda. They assert that it provides extensive coverage and is more cost-effective compared to other business process systems.

While the license isn't budget-friendly, careful consideration and calculated planning for a significant number of licenses can make it more cost-effective. The pricing structure hinges on three crucial parameters: process instances, how frequently processes are initiated, and the number of users. These latter two factors exert a considerable influence on the overall cost. However, for those looking to explore it, trying the cloud version is a viable option. The cloud variant starts at $200 per month. I would rate it six out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it ten out of ten.

It is usually used to orchestrate or automate flows of interaction between our systems. It is basically for integration. For example, for a permit that needs to go through several systems, in Camunda, we have a business process that orchestrates all the steps where the permit needs to be processed. All the systems are notified of this permit, and if there are people who need to interact with a specific permit, they get notified. They can then take action. That's the kind of use case for which we use Camunda in our organization.

For myself, the use case is similar, but it is for invoicing. When we receive an invoice, we need to process it. It goes through the business process. There are a lot of business rules that are applied to it. For example, we will check whether the total amount is balanced with subtotals and tax, and if that's not the case, with Camunda, we can create what's called a user task. It allows us to make an agent to take care of this invoice and fix the data that is related to it. These are the use cases that we are trying to achieve with Camunda. The goal is to clean up the invoice and make sure that the information related to it is correct so that it can be transferred to our ERP to pay suppliers.

It is on-premise, and we've been able to put it in a Docker container. It is deployed in Kubernetes in our organization.

The main benefit is automation. When you don't have such a tool, you take a business process and try to interpret it in terms of code. You don't have visibility. Camunda helps an organization to see the process. If you see that something is wrong in your process, you can easily adjust it to fix the issues. There is a tool that comes with the Enterprise version of Camunda that allows you to see where most of the tasks or processes are merging in your business process. So, you can update and optimize that. If your organization uses Camunda to automate processes, you can have enormous gains from that.

It is a great tool. It was our choice to use it. It works well as a universal process orchestrator for complex business processes. It allows us to focus on the business process itself. If you want to orchestrate multiple calls to external systems and you want to be sure that all the systems are notified, it works great. My use case was more business-oriented, and it worked great for that. As a universal orchestration tool, it is good and powerful.

It allows business users to create, update, and execute complex workflows. This is important for us. We are more project-oriented, which is also the way most organizations work. We have a lot of developers during the development, but when we reach a point where the solution is built and we are in an operational state, we prefer to have a tool that can be used by the business. They should be able to configure and personalize their solution without requiring developers to do it. They should be flexible and autonomous in doing that, and we in IT don't necessarily have to have developers for that. We can focus on other projects. There are a lot of benefits to working like that.

Its ease of use is important in allowing us to automate processes. For my personal use case, it simulates a type of virtual agent. It allows us to gain greater value because people don't have to work on basic things. Camunda is doing it instead. We are adding great value by using Camunda for small things.

It has the ability to integrate with a variety of automated and digital systems, which, for us, was a prerequisite. It was important because if it could not interact with our system, it would have been hard to automate anything. It would become just like a business process to orchestrate people instead of the system. Therefore, it was important that we have connectivity with other systems. In the version we have, there are no specific connectors. There are more generic connectors, such as HTTP connectors. This might have changed in the new version, but the ability to interact with other systems was a prerequisite for us. If it didn't have this functionality, it wouldn’t have been interesting to use Camunda.

It helps bridge communication gaps between our development and business departments. Because everything is visible, the developers could see exactly what the client is trying to accomplish. To have something that we can see or even touch was interesting. It reduced the gap between two things. Only connectors were a little bit hard to understand for the business people, but developers were there to assist in configuring the connector. They had to work together, but the main focus was on the business, and it helped the developers in understanding what the business was trying to achieve.

Camunda automation has freed up our staff's time to focus on other valued tasks. When we are developing our solution, we have sprints of two weeks. We organize our work for two weeks, and regularly, we have tasks related to the business process and how we need to update it to adjust to some reality. Now, we have people from the business who are doing it, but it is still visible to the developers. It has saved the time of at least one developer for the two weeks because the business is able to work on that alone. We have five or six developers, and now, they can focus on the technical side of the solution.

Before Camunda, we had a lot of people interacting with the invoice daily. We had, for example, an agent who was doing 300 invoice checks and validations per day. With Camunda, those people are now handling only more complex checks and validations. Our processing time for an invoice is reduced from about 30 days to 10 days. There is about 70% saving of time.

We can easily define and deploy business processes. Camunda provides the tools that allow business people to design business processes. We don't have to have developers for it. It is so easy to use that our business people can go into the tool and model their business processes. We get time to do other things than just designing business processes. They are called business processes because it is the business that's driving them. So, it is better that they can design them because they're the right people to design them. The tool is great for that.

Transition-wise also, it is good. For example, if you have a defined business process with an invoice, and then for some reason, the business people decide that they want to add the business rules in their business process, they just can take the latest version of the business process, add the business rule, and easily deploy the new process to Camunda. Magically, all the new invoices will go to the new process, and the old ones will remain until all the invoices are processed. It is very easy to transition between all those business process definitions. These are the two most interesting features that Camunda provides.

We're trying to put the people from the business to do it. We are using APIs, and we have open APIs to define our APIs and the request-response that each call requires and sends. So, to base the mapping on that, there was nothing to help. I know that with some tools, such as Oracle tools, you can see the input and expected output. With drag and drop, you can take one property from the left and drag it to the right, and it does all the mapping itself, but that's not the case with Camunda. So, for me, this is something that can be improved.

If you stick to the basics, it can be pretty easy. If you need to extend, as we did with custom plugins, this is rather hard because the documentation is not that great. Everything is there. It is an open-source tool, and we had access to classes and documentation, but there was no great explanation on how to use them. There were also not many examples. It was pretty hard to go this way, but if you stick with the basic functionality, it is a great and easy tool.

Another thing that we struggled with has already been fixed. They now offer a SaaS version of Camunda. We struggled a little bit with how to deploy Camunda in our infrastructure. The way it was designed was that the database can easily become a performance bottleneck. It is something that they could improve. They can provide more examples of how to implement a scalable solution using Camunda.

My organization has been using it for around five years. For me, it has been around two years.

We had to do a lot of tweaking. It hasn't been stable from the beginning, but with some effort, it can become stable.

It is limited. The way it works is that when you are starting, you have to create a full autonomous Camunda instance with its own database. It can work, but it is not out of the box. If you want to have minimal scalability of Camunda, you can do it, but it will be linked to a single database, which can become a bottleneck. So, if your database sizing is not great enough, when you scale Camunda, there will be a performance issue. Usually, it works great, but it depends on your business case and your intent in using Camunda.

Our experience was great. Usually, they were assessing what we did. They were asking us to provide our configuration, and they were responding fast. It is different for different organizations, but I personally always prefer that they don't do the work for us. They should provide more advice and then we learn from that. They had the same approach, and I was happy with that. We used their consultant two or three times, and each time, it was a great service. I would rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

We started with Camunda. 

We have three instances of Camunda running, and inside Camunda, there are multiple business processes for different solutions. For example, we have different types of permits. Each one has its own business process, and everything is deployed on Kubernetes. We have about 10 or 15 endpoints that are used through connectors.

Its setup was a little hard. The documentation was not that great at that time, and they had a lot of versions. What made it hard was that their recommendation was changing. For some time, they were providing a Docker image, and then they changed to what they call a green stack where we were using spring boot to achieve that. I'm not sure what it is now, but I know that it changed again. So, it was hard to follow the best practices related to Camunda at the beginning. It came down to documentation.

Overall, it took weeks. To have something running was fast and took days, but we had a lot of tweaking to do. To be advanced in our solution development, we did stress tests and had a few problems with that. We were trying to adjust the configuration, and the documentation was not always easy to read. Sometimes, the configuration was easy because we had to adjust the configuration just with the XML file. Sometimes, we had to go a little further in Java. There were different levels of tweaking. Overall, it was fast to have the initial version of Camunda running, but it took us a lot of time to have something production ready.

We started doing it in-house because we wanted to acquire knowledge about that. After a few weeks or months, as we were getting closer to our production date, we got the Camunda Enterprise version. One of the things that came with that license was support from Camunda. So, we contacted them just to update how we did our configuration. They found that we had a lot of instance processes, and because of our level of history, it had a lot of extra data. They provided us with scripts to help clean our database from unrequired data. So, in the beginning, we didn't take any help from a consultant or Camunda, but as we were near our delivery dates, we took some help. Even when we were in production, we had some issues. We contacted Camunda for some things that were not working correctly. It was just to get advice on how we installed things. It was okay, but it required some adjustment.

In terms of the number of people involved in its deployment, because it was something that was considered complex, I did it myself just to have the basics, and after that, when there was something to adjust, the team did it with me. So, it was me, and there was a team that came after.

In terms of maintenance, the way they have made it, it is pretty low maintenance. If you want to upgrade the version of Camunda, you just have to go into the dependencies to adjust the version. Inside the version, there's always a migration script that is embedded in the version. So, it isn't self-maintenance, but you just have to change the version, and everything is done magically.

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.

The feature that appealed to us in the Enterprise version was the migration plan. If you have a business process, for example, with an invoice, and you deploy a new version with a new invoice, for certain times, you will have two business processes running, but we wanted to have only one process instance running at a time. So, we have to migrate the old process instance to the new process definition. They provide the APIs for doing that, but it can be hard. If you are at the node in the old process, you need to tell the engine that you want to migrate it to another node in the new process definition. Doing that manually can be hard. If your business process doesn't change that much, it can be okay, but in the case where it changes a lot, the Camunda Enterprise version provides a user interface to help map the migration between the nodes. We have long-running processes. For example, we could have invoices that are stuck in this process for 10 or 20 days. So, to migrate, we can't wait for the invoice to be processed because it is taking too much time. So, the tool helped us to do this migration planning, and that was one of its greatest features. 

Another appealing feature was that if something happened in your process and you want to debug to see what is going on, the Enterprise version provides a user interface to easily follow the progression of your process. For each node, you can see what changed at what time. That was very helpful when we had a problem with our process. These were the two features that helped us a lot because, at some point, we had some problems using Camunda. Having the Camunda Enterprise version helped us to fix those problems and helped us migrate, but when you have something more stable, as we have right now, those features are less important. We are no longer using the Enterprise version.

In terms of TCO, because it is an open-source solution, it was limited to the time that we spent integrating it. It took us a full year to integrate it into our system. It took a lot of time, which cost us a lot. The cost is also related to the infrastructure. For example, our database is getting bigger every day, but it is not much. Overall, it didn't have a big impact on our functional budget.

At that time, it was one of the few open-source solutions available in the market. For us, it was easier to go with Camunda. We are a government organization, and we need to go through the request of proposal process to acquire a solution, but we didn't for Camunda because it was open source. 

We quickly liked how it was working. It was a no-brainer at the time. We knew that we wanted a workflow engine, and it was only Camunda that provided the level of flexibility that we were searching for and was open source. That's why we went with Camunda. We didn't find any other interesting providers. Now, I know there are a lot more solutions. So, if we have to start over with a new solution, we will take time to see if there are any other tools that can achieve the same.

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.

We use it as a task manager. Our use case is to help manage human tasks and have a workflow to which we can assign a function and some criteria to agents.

Camunda helped in an important way because we have a standard language in discussions between developers and business analysts. It has been key in closing that gap.

And although we haven't quantified things, generally, this type of platform will reduce the cost of in-house development.

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 connectors provided by Camunda work correctly for mapping out and connecting processes. Our strategy is always to use out-of-the-box products.

It exposes a REST API that it can facilitate and make it easy to integrate with other systems.

We are not continuing with Camunda because of performance problems. We have millions of cases and when we did load testing with Camunda we found some limitations.

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.

They also need to integrate business role management, because Camunda doesn't have a built-in business-roles engine. The business analytics monitoring, the BAM portion, could also be improved.

We have been using Camunda Platform for about six months.

It's very stable.

In our strategy, we use containers on-premises to manage scalability using Docker or OpenShift.

Camunda's technical support is very good.

Positive

We had a solution before Camunda, but I don't want to identify it because we did not have a good experience with it.

The installation was very simple. With Camunda, it's very easy in comparison with other products.

We set up a dev environment and a laboratory environment, and it took about five days, max. We hoped to expose Camunda to our end-users, not only IT users but also business-type users.

We haven't seen return on investment because we need more time with this type of product. It's a long-term investment. It will take three, four, or five years to see a return.

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.

Other products, like Pega or IBM or Oracle, are very expensive.

We have evaluated Bonitasoft and RHPAM.

Camunda and other products—like Bonitasoft and RHPAM —have been chosen, strategically, by our enterprise to reduce the gap between developers and analysts, because we talk the same language: BPMN.

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.