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.
"Since implementing we have had a faster time to solution, with fewer resources needed."
"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 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 initial setup was seamless. We didn't run into any hardships at all."
"Another advantage of this tool is its reports and records. You can maintain dashboards, layouts. If you with a Java solution, it takes six months time. If you use this tool, you can finish in one or one and a half months' time."
"The setup is easy."
"It's a stable product."
"This is the most complete solution of its kind."
"I like everything about the entire BPM that comes with the BPM suite."
"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."
"I've found the active community most valuable but it also provides you with a lot of other features."
"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 quite easy to build a simple process without any knowledge of programming."
", Camunda can be a powerful tool to work with when used in an optimized and well-implemented manner."
"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."
"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."
"Native mobile capabilities or hybrid mobile app capabilities are very limited. Things like offline sync, offline storage, access to smartphone device features, etc. are not supported by the Appian platform yet."
"The performance is pretty good, but the distortions need to be optimized in order for it to work well."
"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."
"If we could calculate the amount of data that will be realized, it would help us a lot."
"Form creation and SAIL proprietary language still basically require programming. The claim a BA type can do everything is hogwash."
"There could be a scope of enhancement for capturing the variety of use cases."
"The ability of the interface to load automatic data is not great."
"One of the areas that Appian is working on is to improve its UI capabilities and give more flexibility to the UI."
"When building interfaces, there are limited tools to work with, especially when dealing with different types of tasks, such as user tasks and system tasks."
"Customization and tech stack could be up-to-date."
"In the future, I would definitely like to see the process administration (migration, audit, tracking) and process evaluation (optimize) features added to the community edition."
"Camunda could be improved by making it easier to modify a process. You can program it to follow a process, but it is difficult to modify the process when the application is in use. It could also be improved by making it easier to use the visual platform without needing to be informed on that. Sometimes, we programmers haven't used it in the past, and it's a bit difficult to learn it."
"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."
"I would say that Camunda should actually focus on small cases as well. There's a lot of space out there, for small businesses. If they can, they should cater to them."
"The product does not have a dictionary."
"As we experienced some difficulties in the beginning, deployment took almost a month."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews while Camunda is ranked 1st in Business Process Management (BPM) with 69 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while Camunda is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". 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, Bizagi, Pega BPM, 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.