We performed a comparison between Appian and Camunda Platform based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Appian has an edge over Camunda Platform in this comparison. It is easier to deploy and has better customer support.
"It's a stable product."
"It has very flexible adaptation and the ability to save and automate processes."
"The most valuable features of Appian are the VPN engine, it is fast, lightweight, and easy to set up business rules. Business teams can do it by themselves. That is a very good feature."
"Appian is easy to install and set up, and it does not come out with your audit. It has accessible process orchestration and process management. With Appian, the time to market is much faster."
"Technical support is helpful."
"Appian helps you do a lot of things. It's easy to configure and build an application platform, and it offers a lot of features that you find in an RPA solution. It's flexible so you can reuse it for a variety of use cases."
"Recently, we added Appian Process Mining, Appian Portals, and now Appian RPA."
"Technical support is quite responsive."
"The architecture is good because it's a headless workflow. I can create my own frontend, and it's fully API-based."
"The headless nature of the Camunda Platform is something that has helped us to build our own logic and platforms on it."
"It's user friendly, much better than most tools I have seen."
"Provides an easy way to integrate with the architectural environment."
"Camunda Platform has a very good interface for workflow and business process design."
"The most valuable feature is that, with a visual system, you can try to have a process client before beginning the programming for the application."
"Camunda Platform is better than IBM BPM, and Azure. It is more elaborate."
"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."
"We'd like improved functionality for testing new devices."
"While Appian is generally flexible, it's rigid in some ways. It takes longer to do something that isn't available out of the box."
"Appian could include other applications that we could reuse for other customers, CRM for example."
"Occasionally, certain pre-made modules may not be necessary and customers may desire greater customization options. Instead of being limited to pre-designed features, they may prefer a more flexible version that allows for greater customization."
"Appian has a few areas for improvement, which my organization raised with the Appian team. One is the Excel output which is limited to fifty columns when it should be up to two hundred or three hundred columns."
"What could be improved is more on the front end perspective, like the user interface and the mobile application aspect."
"The UI of Appian is more internal. Recently, there has been an addition of an external user portal for the customer-facing stuff. It's still coming out."
"There are four areas I believe Appian could improve in. The first is a seamless contact center integration. Appian does not have a contact center feature. The second is advanced features in RPA. The third would be chatbot and email bot integration—while Appian comes with chatbot and email bot, it's not as mature as it should be, compared to the competition. The fourth area would be next best action, since there is not much of this sort of feature in Appian. These are all features which competitors' products have, and in a mature manner, whereas Appian lacks on these four areas. I see customers who are moving from Appian to Pega because these features are not in Appian."
"The business model could be easier to understand."
"I have faced problems in bringing up the Cockpit in terms of GUI processes. I think that there is room for improvement in those areas."
"The user interface needs some polishing because it is too technical for end-users to use it."
"It lacks some preset features and configurations which would make it more plug-and-play for customers."
"In terms of features, it meets my needs, but I would like Camunda to have an office in Brazil and provide training in Portuguese. They should provide regional support and training courses in Portuguese."
"I would like to see better pricing."
"Community support is basically what I'm looking for. Other than that, it is okay for now."
"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."
Appian is ranked 3rd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 29 reviews while Camunda is ranked 1st in Business Process Management (BPM) with 30 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while Camunda is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Stands out with its integration capabilities, but the backend modeling can be streamlined a little bit". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Camunda writes "Open-source, easy to define new processes, and easy to transition to new business process definitions". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, ServiceNow, Pega BPM and Mendix, whereas Camunda is most compared with Apache Airflow, Pega BPM, Bizagi, Bonita and IBM BPM. See our Appian vs. Camunda report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors and best Process Automation vendors.
We monitor all Business Process Management (BPM) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
