Camunda Reviews

The feature that I like most is the decoupling architecture. I can use any other tools to create services and the UI, and then use them together with the Camunda BPMN engine. 

I would like to see more examples of using .NET and Camunda. I'm from the .NET world and I would like to use it, rather than Java. For Java, Camunda is great. For .NET I have opinion that need more real life examples. For example I woudl like to see example of  .NET Blazor UI with Camunda.

Also, I would like to see more examples of how to work with a team of users.

I am new to Camunda BPM and have been using it for only one year.

It is stable and I don't have any problems with it.

I don't have any experience with scaling Camunda in practice. However, I have read about it and feel that it's a scalable solution. We can install a lot of different installation and they can work together.

We didn't have any experience with technical support.

The initial setup is easy. I wouldn't say that it is complex at all. They deployment takes only a day. If you don't want to use something specific then you can install it in two hours.

We use the open-source version, which can be used at no cost.

I would highly recommend the open-source version of Camunda, which can be used free of charge, for any software development company that would like to implement BPM in their software solutions. For software companies, it is a very good product.

You can have BPM in an engine and you can use external software solutions to create the UI, and you don't need to pay anything for licensing. This means that you can incorporate it fully, and use as much as you need. You can expand your software solutions if you want, without any license, which I think is great.

This is a good product but because it's open-source, it's always missing something.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We are using Camunda BPM to schedule outbound phone calls.

The most valuable feature is the scheduling.

The upfront enterprise-level support could have been better. They need improvement.

The initial set up could be simplified, it's complex.

I would like to see better sales support, upfront implementation, and more a more wizard-like walkthrough with the next release.

I have been working with Camunda BPM for three months.

We are using the most recent version.

It's a stable solution. 

We have not had any issues in the three months that we have been using it.

We have not done any scaling yet.

Technical support is good. 

We have more of an issue with sales support.

We did not use another solution previously. Camunda was our first choice.

The initial setup was complex and it took us five days to deploy it.

Licensing costs are anywhere from $80,000 to $100,000 USD per year.

For anyone who is interested in using Camunda BPM, I would recommend reading the documentation. 

The documentation is good and can be easily accessed online.

I am happy with Camunda BPM.

I would rate Camunda BPM an eight out of ten.

We use an open-source version of this product. In some cases we install on-premises, in some cases, we install on Dockers. How we install the product depends on the use cases and the needs of the projects that we engage in.  

One client may be in logistics. Another client may be involved with internal communication. Another one is in retail. Some will be in business project management. We have to treat each of these to fit their unique needs.  

I like the product since we are a Java-oriented company. Our solutions can be compact with Java. We found it quite useful because we can merge microservices together. It is a different kind of architecture but it is a flexible product that we can use to go live with solutions quickly.  

From my point of view, there is a lot that has room for improvement. But one option that they should focus on most is improving the basic parts of the BPM tools. One example is that they should offer some additional options in terms of employing connectors. We implemented most of our solutions in Java through delegation. We could have done a better job of that with connectors. So connectors are one of the cases where they might improve.  

Another point that I am thinking of that I can not do by myself is to improve the forms. Right now the forms are fairly simple. It would be nice to implement some kind of wizard, or advanced form, and be able to fill in data dynamically.  

A possible add-on is to have a mobile app. Specifically, it would be a tool used to prepare forms dynamically and to preview business projects. If you know what you need to do, you can actually do a lot with a product like that.  

From a security point of view, I think that some features can be added or enhanced. I see a lot of opportunities for interesting stuff that can be implemented like installation identity or places where token authorization can be used. More security measures can be added in order to offer options to protect the front line.  

One final feature that would be nice is the opportunity to operate an active database. I do not think that will happen soon. It is okay because we have very powerful database options right now.  

We have been using this solution for about one year.  

The stability of the product is quite good. You need to have the knowhow to work with it to optimize for best performance with the database and CPU and stuff. But it is a stable and reliable product.  

It is a scalable product. We do not have much on the cloud right now. It is less than 5 nodes. But we could expand that if we needed to.  

As I understand more of the benefits of using the product, I have more plans to increase usage. With any new customer that has a proper use case, Camunda will be my first choice. Even if it is just for the fact that we know we can deploy fast. We can start with a single instance and after that, we can scale without hesitating too much in the planning stages. It is very comfortable for the customer to see things happen quickly. From our experience, most new customers prefer to start small. Better to start fast and get them going and to build them a little at a time to more automated projects than to wait around with nothing seeming to happen.  

I have been around 10 years or more in this industry as a solution architect. With this product, we have the flexibility and speed to serve customers quickly and that is important.  

As for technical support, let's say we do not need it. We can cover any issues by ourselves with our team. We do not have any issues. If we do have an issue, we will compensate for it using Java.  

I prefer not to mention the other product by name because it seems like I would be saying it was not good enough and had to move on, but we did use a product as a solution before Camunda. Every product has its benefit in terms of what they deliver and we just decided that Camuda BPM fit our needs better than the other solution.  

For example, if we wanted to incorporate a solution in a situation where a client was using the Oracle family of products already, we might use Oracle SOA or Oracle OSB to stay within the family of products. Those choices would be a perfect fit.  

On the other hand, if your stack is Spring Boots and Java and open source, Camunda fits well. If you are stuck in an enterprise using Red Hat, there is Bonita and other Red Hat BPMs that may work best for you.  

What you use depends on a lot of things. It could change because of the recommendations of team members, it might depend on the current environment, it could be influenced by whether the company is new and needs to grow fast or if it is an established company with a predictable trajectory. At the end of the day what you use depends on the choice you make for what best fits your circumstance.  

The setup was straightforward. We need to have Java, and that is it. My team does the work on the deployments so I don't know exactly how long it takes anymore. But it is a simple concept that the more complicated the client's needs and use cases are, the longer it will take.  

We do deployments with just two people: one senior and one junior tech. But it depends on the complexity of the workflow. Sometimes we might bring an extra tech if the workflow is complex.  

Of course, we do not use an integrator, reseller, or consultant for the deployment because we are in that role. We know how to build it and we know how to run this kind of project. In the beginning, we did make a lot of mistakes, but at the end of the day, it works. Now when we have a new customer, we know what to do.  

We are using the open-source version so it is without cost.  

My advice about Camunda is I recommend this product when it fits your needs. It is that simple.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as a nine because it fits my demands. Of course, there is always room for improvement in the interface, or performance, and stuff like that.  

I hope that people will work on Camunda and within the next releases we will have more connectors, we will have a much more powerful interface, and maybe we can have a mobile app as well.  

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. 

Our primary use case for Camunda is as a process orchestration layer to help prioritize tasks for users as they were designing downstream systems. Camunda is a way to push the rules to the downstream systems. We are partly a reseller, but we also implement and we are the systems integrator. I'm the vice president and account CCO of our company. 

One valuable feature of Camunda is that it's an open BPM, so it was easier for users and developers to work together to define the rules and define the process, given their BPM and standard architecture. This also allowed us to expose the rules and the business process itself into a standard model, which wasn't possible with other tools and softwares we've used in the past. Finally, the engine itself is lightweight so it was easier for us to handle deployments and in production it didn't have a great demand of the infrastructure.

I think there is room for improvement along with the process. Camunda doesn't have a strong forms designer. While that is an advantage in one scenario in that we were able to bring a third party UI, it was lacking in forms visualization and it would be good to have some kind of a strong forms designer that allows development along with the process.

More often, we are seeing BPM used in conjunction with other automation technologies like RPA and AI. If Camunda were to be placed as a central BPM, it would need a better integration mechanism.

I've been using this solution for two years. 

I would rate this solution a seven out of 10. 

The primary use case is for modeling processes.

It allows me to present or to demonstrate the business process flow, visually, without having to resort to PowerPoint, Visio, or other products. 

I can convert it into a real process. Once it is validated visually by the business people, then it can be enhanced into a full-blown process model.

The features that I like the most are the drag and drop.

The simulation feature of this solution needs improvement. As an example, if I wanted to highlight an event then when I press on it, I would like all of the impacted processes to highlight. That way, you can see the impact of an event on different processes.

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

When it comes to insurance, just to give you an example, there is marketing, then underwriting, policies for contracts, policies for prevention, collections, there are claims, and business flows that we had to create from scratch. If we could have started through a template, it would have helped us kick start the initiative.

I have been using Camunda BPM for one year.

This solution is stable. I have not experienced any issues with this solution.

It's a bit early, so I haven't stress-tested it yet for scalability.

We have three users.

I haven't reached out to technical support.

I found everything on the website. The manuals and tips were useful.

Previously, I used BPM online, but I changed to Camunda BPM because I downgraded my current requirements.

I enjoyed BPM online but needed a more lightweight tool for modeling. BPM online is cumbersome on the modeling side.

The initial setup was straightforward.

It was deployed a year ago, so I can't remember exactly, but I think that I only took a few minutes to deploy.

I did not use an integrator, I did it on my own.

It's free, open-source.

I use the open-source free version.

I reviewed Sygnavio and Pega Systems. 

I chose the Camunda BPM, because I am domain-oriented, and I saw that many companies, especially in my domain, the insurance domain, are using Camunda BPM and that gave me the insight as to where I should focus my efforts.

We are currently a startup with Insur Tech and we are sensitive to cost. It's our strategy and it is the best tool for the price at this time.

What I have learned from using Camunda BPM is to keep it simple.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution to run business processes that contain human tasks.

The speed and execution of DMN was a big selling point for us. It's very good at conducting business processes that are easily modeled and presented in a way that's easy to understand. 

Especially when you use the open-source version, there are issues with performance. 

The external programs that communicate with Camunda are kind of late 20th century in terms of style and need updating.

We've been using the solution for two years.

In general, the solution is pretty stable. 

It's hard to get information to size it properly if you don't use a Camunda subscription. That might not really be a Camunda issue; it could be a sizing problem. For example, they have issues with very high usage of the database even when there are very few processes running. I had a situation in which the databases were at 100% and they should not have been. 

Right now, we don't have too many users on the solution, but when it is done, we'll have about 25,000. It's quite scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward, but if you need to tweak any part of the it, it can get complex.

We did evaluate other options, but we were looking for something that was open source and small and there's not too much choice for those options.

Right now we use a standalone Camunda in Docker. Before, on previous projects, we used embedded Camunda in Java applications. We use both cloud and on-premises deployment models. For cloud deployment, we use Microsoft Azure as the provider.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is for invoices, receipts and purchase orders. There is no specific line of business but we basically use it for some main processes that we want to be automated.

The solution is easily compatible with HTML forms and HTML language programming and that is the most significant part. The data model definition in Camunda is a little complicated, so for someone with industrial engineering background it would be hard. But for someone with a computer engineering programming background Camunda is much more understandable and really easy to use.

Just today I encountered a problem with the current version, and that is the functionality of the BPM standard, which is not yet implemented in Camunda. An example would be a new marker for tasks. Maybe the developers of Camunda can, as soon as possible, provide all possible functionalities of BPM standard in its process engine. Some are not yet supported and they can really cause serious problems for implementers.

In the next release I would like to have more documentation on how it can interact with other organization systems, as well as other documentation about API. I would also like more  support about features. It would be great for someone like me with a little programming and developing background, to see an easier platform for data modeling. A place where you can create your own data model, your own entities, your own entity relationship, and be able to find a form based on that data model. That would be much more straight forward for someone like me, as a teacher. But it's not provided here right now. I would also like an easy to use form builder.

I think this question can be better answered by a developer or someone who is backing the network and server. I'm more concerned with process modeling and the process deployment tasks. But as far as I'm concerned, yes, there hasn't been any problems with stability.

The technical support is good. Just last week, we wanted to know something about our modeler and how to change it to be compatible with the Persian language. The Persian language is a language where you write from right to left, so it's different from most European languages like English. So, when we started to use Persian and modeler, the text was messy and disorderly and we wanted to know how to correct it. We sent emails but the support team said it's better to ask this question on a forum. I asked the question in forums but I haven't received a response yet. I think it may be because this problem is a little rare, so that is why they couldn't help us. But I think the support is good. At least they responded to the email as fast as they could, even though they couldn't provide a solution.

The initial setup was very easy, but we haven't deployed the program yet, as we are still only testing it. We have tested how to deploy new processes, how to use the clips to deploy processes, and how to integrate your modeler into clips. If you are referring to these issues, I think the provided documentation is quite sufficient.

My advice to others would be to know their own abilities, their own resources. Are they comfortable with a lot of programming even for a simple form? Do they have enough programming provided in their resources? If they are not comfortable with that, it can take a little longer for them to adapt to Camunda. But if they have good developers, programmers, HTML, CSS and so on, they won't have a problem. I can also say the documentation is good and they have a live, technical forum where you can ask questions and get a fast response. I am not sure if it is available in all BPM packages, though.

On a scale from one to 10, I will rate this solution a seven, because there are quite a few things that could be improved.