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 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."
"The product's most valuable feature is the low code aspect of development. We can develop an end-to-end VPN solution using a single platform."
"It has good integrations. We were looking for out-of-the-box integration with both on-prem and publicly accessible data sources. We needed integration with the cloud, OData, our REST API feed, and then on-prem passthrough to go to a SQL database or on-prem APIs through Azure local deployment, etc."
"The application life cycle is very clear. I started learning it and giving some workshops to my team. Creating the users and the building is very structured. Documentation is nice and it's easy to learn."
"I find the BPM the most valuable feature."
"Technical support has been amazing overall."
"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."
"The integration with almost any language, product, and even human tasks, is valuable. It's very seamless to integrate into existing systems. It doesn't require you to rewrite a lot of your existing system. That's where it really stands out."
"The most valuable feature of Camunda Platform is its Microservices architecture, which is easily integrable with APIs."
"We like the idea of working with Cawemo because it enables us to keep on working, remotely or not. It allows us to collaborate between areas. It's easy to model and easy to use"
"Provides an easy way to integrate with the architectural environment."
"The architecture is good because it's a headless workflow. I can create my own frontend, and it's fully API-based."
"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."
"It's user friendly, much better than most tools I have seen."
"The ease with which I can define workflows is most valuable. The latest updates and flexibility that it provides around a task activity are interesting for me."
"Something I would like to see improved is an SQL database connection."
"One room for improvement is the ease of UI UX development, like in OutSystems and Mendix."
"One of the areas that Appian is working on is to improve its UI capabilities and give more flexibility to the UI."
"The solution needs more features. For example, a way to connect to our viewing database, to record, and more interface and component design."
"There is no UI customization possible."
"Appian could be improved by making it a strict, no-code platform with free-built process packs."
"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."
"The ability of the interface to load automatic data is not great."
"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 think that Camunda can try to do better when it comes to solving the complexities of all the products in its software stack."
"An improvement would be to support Angular 2 instead of AngularJS, which is quite old."
"The business model could be easier to understand."
"There should be a multi-tenant solution for the platform where it supports multiple organizations on one platform instead of having to spin up multiple clusters for each organization. There should be an easy way to integrate different departments into one platform without having to operate multiple platforms. The operations should be easier with the enterprise solution. It should not create more overhead for the operations people."
"The documentation could use improvement."
"Camunda Platform's customer support could be improved because their response is quite slow."
"While it's very scalable, it would be great if auto-scaling capabilities were added to it... one area that really could help out would be to have dynamic resizing of the cluster. Right now, you have to do capacity planning."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 28 reviews while Camunda is ranked 1st in Business Process Management (BPM) with 24 reviews. Appian is rated 8.2, while Camunda is rated 8.4. 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, Pega BPM, ServiceNow and Mendix, whereas Camunda is most compared with Apache Airflow, Pega BPM, Bizagi, IBM BPM and Bonita. 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.
