No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Camunda vs OpenText Process Automation comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Camunda
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
79
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (3rd), Process Automation (1st), AI Orchestration Frameworks (3rd), Agentic Automation (8th), AI Agent Builders (9th), Business Orchestration and Automation Technologies (8th)
OpenText Process Automation
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
25th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Business Process Management (BPM) category, the mindshare of Camunda is 7.1%, down from 19.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Process Automation is 1.1%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Management (BPM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Camunda7.1%
OpenText Process Automation1.1%
Other91.8%
Business Process Management (BPM)
 

Featured Reviews

CristianoGomes - PeerSpot reviewer
Owner at a tech services company with 1-10 employees
Supports long-running asynchronous processes effectively but has not evolved much in recent years
I think Camunda is focusing too much on the SaaS offering right now and not much on improving and developing the product itself. I did not see any innovations on that aspect, especially for the open-source version. I was making some tests recently and the tool seemed pretty much the same as it was three or four years ago. Since they made the move to cloud deployment in a more SaaS-oriented way, they do not invest too much in the community version. To be honest, it did not change much from the Activiti initial version. Activiti was pretty much what Camunda is today. They invested a lot on Zeebe and made it the engine for their SaaS cloud version. Camunda itself, the embedded engine, did not evolve too much. They could invest more on that.
Senthil Natarajan - PeerSpot reviewer
Chief Operating Officer at a outsourcing company with 51-200 employees
The solution enables automation of supply chain and invoice processing with comprehensive integration and workflow capabilities
The main valuable features of OpenText AppWorks are the BPM modules. There is the standard BPM modeler and a case modeler. These are two strong features from the workflow layer. Additionally, the integration capability of the solution is beneficial. With these features, we are able to use OpenText AppWorks for automating supply-chain-related problems, vendor process automations, and invoice automations. We have built almost twenty-plus types of solutions and implemented around three hundred fifty-plus implementations. The solution also allows us to integrate it with our ERP system.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Since day one, our goal was to build reusable components that can be used in other projects, and we recently did a discovery for one of our projects and we found that we could reuse 80 percent of what we had developed on the Camunda platform, and the microservices and the connectors were reusable and that really reduced the development effort drastically for that use case."
"We evaluated Appian for my current job but it's less beneficial if your aim is to have your customers at the front end, and we took the middle road when we went with Camunda and the flexibility it offers is a big advantage for us."
"The biggest difference between Camunda and Bonita might be that Camunda is simpler and more flexible for setting, though we are at the beginning and need to experiment."
"It is an absolutely stable solution."
"Because it's a complete solution, you can start modeling to automate processes."
"The product has a good task management engine."
"The modeler is useful for creating the flow. The way to access the data through their REST API is also valuable. This is what we're using right now."
"Camunda serves as an automation library and provides lightweight deployment to the cloud."
"One of the most useful features is the code is customizable, we can make it our own."
"AppWorks is a very quick development platform with low-coding capability and strong integration with third-party systems."
"The monitoring aspect is highly valuable, as it offers an exceptional capability to track every minute of action performed by a business user in the global context."
"The good part of OpenText AppWorks is that all of its components are together in one platform, including integration capability, UI capability, and workflow capability."
"The stability has been perfect over the years; there are no bugs or glitches, it doesn't crash or freeze, it's reliable, and the performance is good."
"We really appreciate the process automation and how can you create human tasks as one of your processes."
"Its customer support is reliable and easy to approach."
"In terms of the scalability and the handling of complexity, the customers are satisfied, and we also have confidence in the solution to achieve whatever implementations are required."
 

Cons

"The GUI needs to be improved, with more configuration options."
"I would like to have a feature for audit logging, audit logs and audit log management. And some history of use for the audit logs."
"Camunda needs to improve its user interface for low-code development and provide more user interface options beyond the basic workflow."
"The deployment model could be improved for easier implementation. More open documentation would be beneficial to understand the deployment process better and facilitate easier setup."
"The support offered by the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"When addressing a complex and extensive process, the domain it belongs to, be it banking, healthcare, or HR, requires widespread access."
"The initial setup can be complex for business users."
"On the other hand, if I were rating it for use by the public then I would rate it a three out of ten."
"OpenText needs improvements in its integration model to align with newer integration types."
"OpenText AppWork's low-code capabilities can be enhanced by integrating them with AI offerings like Aviator."
"The UI for the solution is complex, and it would be better to go for Openpath and Angular or use another BPM engine."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing structure."
"There could be some improvements with the low code design part. It could be more customizable and more user friendly."
"A room for improvement in OpenText AppWorks is its user interface. It should have mobile compatibility because right now, you still have to make two applications with a user interface for Android and a user interface for iOS, so if OpenText AppWorks can provide one UI that can be used across all devices, that would make the solution better. An additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of OpenText AppWorks is a better UI in terms of the look and feel. Another feature I'd like to see in the next version of the solution is mobile compatibility because, at the moment, you have to make your application mobile-ready or compatible with mobile devices because there's no provision for it in OpenText AppWorks."
"The solution needs to continue to enhance the low-coding feature within the product itself."
"The integration could improve."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Camunda is a cheaply priced product, making it one of its major USPs."
"Generally, the price could be better, as well as the licensing fees."
"The product's price depends on the number of processes that need to be automated or where the orchestration part needs to be used. The product is affordable for medium and large enterprises."
"It is good for a startup. When we started, its price was fair, but the way we are using it to orchestrate microservices makes it expensive. When you are growing as a company, you would have more microservices, and you would have more users. There is an exponential effect when you are growing in terms of the number of conditions, processes, and users because they bill you per process. So, the price was increasing very quickly for us, and it was very difficult."
"Licensing costs are anywhere from $80,000 to $100,000 USD per year."
"Camunda is much cheaper."
"Camunda's pricing is good."
"The product is expensive for a small or medium-sized company."
"The price is on the higher side."
"There is a user-based perpetual license."
"AppWorks is pretty expensive."
"The licensing cost varies based on several factors, such as the size of the customer and the domain URL."
"Pricing for OpenText AppWorks, specifically in the Indian market, is reasonable, but I'm not aware if it's still reasonable outside of India. The licensing cost is based on the number of licenses and the number of users. OpenText AppWorks has different licensing options."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Management (BPM) solutions are best for your needs.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
23%
Computer Software Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Construction Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Insurance Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business43
Midsize Enterprise15
Large Enterprise30
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Large Enterprise3
 

Questions from the Community

How does Bonita compare with Camunda Platform?
One of the things we like best about Bonita is that you can create without coding - it is a low-code platform. With Bonita, you can build the entire mechanism using the GUI, it’s that simple. You c...
Which do you prefer - Appian or Camunda Platform?
Appian is fast when building simple to medium solutions. This solution offers simple drag-and-drop functionality with easy plug-and-play options. The initial setup was seamless and very easy to imp...
Which would you choose - Camunda Platform or Apache Airflow?
Camunda Platform allows for visual demonstration and presentation of business process flows. The flexible Java-based option was a big win for us and allows for the integration of microservices very...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OpenText AppWorks?
From an enterprise point, their pricing is a little bit crazy because they don't have a SaaS model. They have to go with a perpetual model, which makes it look crazy initially. But over a period, i...
What needs improvement with OpenText AppWorks?
They can improve the UI capability. Recently, they launched a low-code platform, called entity modeling, which they can enhance further. It would be beneficial if OpenText ( /products/data-express-...
What is your primary use case for OpenText AppWorks?
We primarily use OpenText AppWorks ( /products/opentext-appworks-reviews ) for automating supply chain-related problems, vendor process automations, and invoice automations. We have our own product...
 

Also Known As

Camunda BPM
No data available
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

24 Hour Fitness, AT&T Inc., Atlassian, Autodesk, Barclays, BNP Paribas, CapitalOne, Commerzbank AG, Deutsche Telekom, Fujitsu, Gainsight, Generali, Goldman Sachs, Provinzial, NatWest Group, Panasonic, R-Kom, Swisscom AG, VHV Group, Warner Music, WellPoint, Zalando
Red Deer County, DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance, Bangkok Airways, PBS, CIZ (Netherlands Ministry of Health), The Dutch Ministry of Defence, Mercer
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda vs. OpenText Process Automation and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.