Camunda Reviews

We are using the product as an OAM that we have included in our software product. We are offering a private cloud solution and we sell it and deploy it to our customers. 

We are using it to create a low-code solution for strategic planning and performance management in order to automate the management processes such as planning, performance management, governance processes, and business process management as a whole.

We are using the BPMN engine of Camunda; we are not using the user interface. We are using just the engine, the back end of this. For us, it is working quite well.

The stability of the solution is quite good.

Technical support is good for getting alerts about bugs.

The form builder that will be utilized in the system and the data monitor both need improvement at this time. I want to exchange the data between the activity and UI basis. Currently, they are using a JSON file, which needs to be improved. We need something that can be used as a user interface and the user can make the data binding and exchange data between the activities.

This is what we did ourselves. We had the engine itself and we created a data monitor and formed it on top of it. This is what is missing in the system.

The initial setup can be complex for business users.

There occasionally be some bugs in the solution. 

The solution needs to offer more languages such as Chinese, Arabic, Hebrew, et cetera.

The system is stable. This is why we selected it. Based on other products, we've found the most appropriate results coming out from the Camunda BPM engine. It's very good.

There are occasionally a few bugs, however, we are quite capable of dealing with them.

Since we are using Camunda as a core solution, a core engine of our system, we are going to continue using it. I'm not willing to change it down the line. There's no plan for us to change it and we are not thinking about changing it. It has all functionalities and we are using about 50% of the engine itself in terms of its capability. We will continue to invest in utilizing all Camunda functionalities in the BPM engine.

In terms of technical support, we are using basic technical support as we are a technical organization. We are a software house. Our team is professional and they have experience in Java and private cloud technology. They are able to fix any issue. 

That said, there are certain bugs in Camunda. They are publishing information about them from time to time. We study the tool very carefully. Support from Camunda doesn't mean too much to us actually, as, in our organization, we have about 380 employees, and the majority of them are Java developers. We take the basic support to track the bugs only.

Positive

I also have some experience using Visio as business process management and ARIS as well as Bizagi.

We are partners of Software AG webMethods as an automation tool. We are using Mendix and OutSystems as a low-code solution. ARIS, webMethods, Mendix, and OutSystems are what we mainly use. 

You cannot compare Camunda with ARIS since ARIS is only for our documentation, business process documentation. You cannot compare it with Camunda. It is a totally different scope. However, in comparison between Mendix, OutSystems, and webMethods, they are very expensive tools and ultimately provide the same functionality, yet they are not using a pure BPMN XML. Maybe transferring the workflow between those systems doesn't work. That said, the consistency between, for example, Bonitasoft and Camunda and Bizagi is a matter of import and export. Between other systems such as webMethods and OutSystems and Mendix, for example, in webMethods, they are only still using an enhanced BPM engine mainly, meaning that they are not using the pure or the standard BPM notation. The same applies to Mendix and OutSystems.

The initial setup, for business users, is complex. If you compare it with cloud systems and Mendix, it is complicated. It has a very strong and very rigid back-end BPM engine and it's more trustworthy if XML files have been generated from Camunda. The quality of the XML file being generated from Camunda, the XML files of BPMN, is more trustworthy than other systems. That's why we selected it. This is the main reason that we selected it.

With the Camunda installer, the deployment of just the solution is pretty fast.

However, the automation process with the current functionality, meaning with the missing functionality of data monitor and data binding and with the lack of proper UI representation, it took us a year to develop those components to have a low-code solution on top of it.

Now, with our low-code solution on top, it will take us one to two days to have a visible process automated.

We are an integrator and we are consultants in business process management, and we are developing a tool on top of it. Therefore, we help our clients to implement. However, when we originally installed Camunda, we handled the process ourselves. The way we do things now, we try to make it easier for clients.

We are using a developer license. I can't speak to exactly how much we are paying, or exactly what license type that we are using. I'm not the technical lead or the solution delivery team. Therefore, I can't answer this question.

We did a lot of POCs on available products in the market, such as Bonitasoft, Camunda, Bizagi, so on. However, based on that POCs, we found that the best way to go forward in our solution in terms of the functionality and the accuracy of the XML files. If they could be generated by Camunda it can be more useful for us to adopt in our solution.

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.

This solution enables the development team to quickly create prototypes and put them into production.

If Camunda could develop something that creates user forms that would be a great feature to have. They also need to improve the UI.

It is extremely stable.

It is very scalable and it scales horizontally. You can basically automate every single process in the company.

We have not used tech support yet. 

We did not use a prior solution to this solution.

I would say it's medium complexity to setup. You do need development skills but the experience has been clear for us.

We have a lot of users, almost 1,800, and we needed something affordable, stable, and something that could be used by a large financial company. This solution truly fit the bill.

It is less cost-prohibitive than other solutions on the market. This solution was in our price range.

We also looked at IBM BPM, Peg, and Appian.

We are using the Camunda Platform to build data models.

The solution is good for data models.

I don't like the UI of the Camunda Platform, I have found the Signavio solution to be much better for me to create the process designs and execute them. Additionally, I have found the tools in the Camunda Platform are not compatible with some of my other tools. They should improve this in the future.

I rate Camunda Platform for approximately two years.

We have many people in my organization using this solution.

I have not contacted support, we use our internal IT team for support.

I have used other solutions previously, such as Signavio.

We have an annual subscription to this solution.

I would not recommend this solution because I did not have a good experience.

I rate Camunda Platform a five out of ten.

Primary use case is for fast prototyping innovatie processes within the social domain of the government.

Camunda has enabled us to do quick prototyping within end-to-end team consisting out  of information architects/process architects/developers and product owner to form a consistent view in business value, achitectural compliancy and technology.

The number of client implementations and cross-language capabilities to support multiple frameworks is very pluggable compared to other BPM engines out there. It's also more portable than most of them. Next to being open source, the modellers are made in HTML and can be embedded in your own website with little effort.

The user interface needs improvement. It should be more tailored to the end-user and offer a better user experience design over the user interface itself.

The solution could also use more and better frameworks in terms of embedding them in the engine. Right now the only embedded framework that's supported is Java. It's not a problem because you can also have remote workers that do part of the process through their remote RESTful API which they have clients for, but you cannot embed .NET. You cannot embed that for execution within the engine through delegates, so I would definitely say that would be a plus if they would expand that. Certainly in terms of performance.

I've been using the solution for two years.

I haven't had any issues with any instability.

There's a free version and an enterprise version, so it depends on which you choose but it's very scalable, but you have to understand it's persistence strategies as it uses a centralized database. That's normal for a BPM, however. In their new product Zeebe, which is a derivative of Camunda, they've made it completely decentralized and scalable via partitions, which might be more generic and easier to understand than the forementioned persistence strategies of Camunda. Because of partitioning, Zeebe is also a step forward into better orchestration in a micro service landscape. On the other hand that comes with the cost of complexity of installation. I would say for small to mid-size companies Camunda is scalable enough.

We're using it in the innovation field labs for the government so there's about potentially 350 municipalities there, and the number of people who are participating in this common ground field lab is about 150 potential developers, product owners, business analists that can be tied together in their disciplines around the Camunda Process and Decision Modelling Engines. A few products in those labs are now being developed using Camunda.

We are able to do everything from community support. Everything is well documented there. There has been no need to get support from them specifically but one of the owners writes a lot of papers and presents webinars which you can join for free. I would say they have very, very good support and are very open-source community-minded. I think they are one of the most supportive companies I've seen.

I don't have any knowledge about the paid support, because we don't do paid plans. I suppose that it would be great because if their free seminars and white papers are good, I suppose a higher level of support would be great, they really know what they are doing.

We used a workflow engine. The reason for switching is compliancy by design. Mainly Object Management Group (OMG) and Triple Crown Standards (BPMN, DMN, CMMN), which are supported by Camunda allowed us to reach this compliancy.

It depends on how you set it up. If you want to set it up for demo purposes or development and start working with the product, the set up is fast. The first one I installed took me five minutes and it was running.

We wanted an open source engine. Therefore we did not evaluate other engines such as Mendix, Pega.

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.

Use cases vary depending on the client's needs. It depends on the customer. We have done a lot of flow automation for the return and authorization, like vehicle return material authorization. We have done a lot of automating their campaign systems. .It purely depends on the customer's requirements.

The interface and the number of connectors that they provide are the most valuable features. The support here is kind of okay. But the main thing is with the number of connectors and the UI, the user interface.

The support definitely can be improved. Apart from that, the language should be extendable to other platforms. If I want to write, I'll run a different platform, like Python code on top of it, or COBOL code on top of it, and it should support those languages.  

It should also have some kind of a custom-engineering extension that will add on to it.

I have been using Camunda for four to five years.

They support a scalable solution on cluster mode. We don't run into a massive scale, but we run with 1 to 5 million. 

The businesses we support range from small to medium.

To be neutral, I would rate their support a five out of ten. Having regional support would add value. 

The initial setup is pretty easy. It depends on the people who are installing it. It generally takes a few days.

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. 

The most valuable features are the management of internal processes, the ability to execute from design and the model for internal processes, the ability to make processes visible, and the ability to have information about the current state of each instance.

I've been using this solution for over five years.

This is a stable product - it works and doesn't disturb me or the IT director.

I previously used Activiti, but it had no well-developed tools to monitor administration or develop new processes.

Our initial setup was quite complex and took around six months due to some bureaucratic issues. However, I think that it could be faster for organizations without such issues.

This isn't a very expensive solution, and it's cheaper than its competitors in terms of licensing and resources.

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

We primarily use the solution for our clients. 

The flexibility is great. 

I appreciate the compact and clear source code.

We have faced problems with the performance.

Camunda has two options: the Camunda main platform and Camunda Cloud. Right now we are trying to solve problems with the Camunda Cloud and there are significant problems with performance. We communicated this with the Camunda team. We're a member of the Camunda community and we try to solve those problems with them.

Community support is lacking and you need to pay for enterprise support.

I'd like to have the ability to buy into the data model. There are no data models in Camunda and we need information about variables and process instances. In other BPMs or other big BPM platforms, for example, IBM, there is that feature.

I've been using the solution for a few years at this point.

We've had some issues with the performance of the product, particularly on the cloud deployment. 

We have about 100 people using the solution at this time. 

We only have developers that use it. We are a development company.

We didn't buy Camunda enterprise support. We only use community support and we don't have, to be honest, enough community support. It's not very helpful. We have many unanswered questions.

We've worked with many different solutions, including IBM, BPM, Oracle, SAP, and VPN platforms, among others.

I like Camunda due to the fact that I can embed it into our infrastructure applications. The library, not the whole sales server.

We use the community version, which is free. I'm not sure of enterprise pricing.

You do need to pay for the enterprise level to get support. Otherwise, you have access to community support, and it is lacking. 

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.

Our company uses this product for the automation of core banking processes. I'm an enterprise architect and team manager and we are partners with Camunda.

We are system integrators, and the value of Camunda for us is that it's easy to integrate into the products and applications we provide for our customers. The product is based on BPMN and is closely integrated with that standard. It's not complicated and generally easy to use, particularly for students and junior developers who come to learn from us as part of their studies.

It would be helpful if the solution had additional out-of-the-box activities.

I've been using this solution for about a year. 

The product is stable.

The product is scalable. 

We use the Camunda community if we have any problems. We haven't needed to engage directly with any level of support from Camunda. The company arranged some learning sessions before we started using the solution and we already had a lot of experience with other platforms. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. 

We're using the open-source version of the solution. 

We evaluated Activiti as a possible alternative to Camunda but we decided to go with Camunda. 

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