We performed a comparison between Camunda Platform and Pega BPM, based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Users show a greater preference for Camunda Platform, as Pega BPM is less stable, intuitive, and might have a less effective support team.
"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."
"It is very user-friendly compared to IBM BPM. It's much simpler – it's more streamlined. That means even non-technical departments can use it."
"The product is stable."
"It allows me to present or to demonstrate the business process flow, visually, without having to resort to PowerPoint, Visio, or other products."
"It is open-source. It supports microservice orchestration. This is what we are really interested in. We can customize our products depending on the use cases."
"The most valuable features are that it's lightweight, can be embedded in existing Java code, and keeps track of the workflow state and the instances that we need."
"The Camunda BPMN Platform is very flexible and gives several options to deploy and scale it."
"It's user friendly, much better than most tools I have seen."
"Pega BPM offers a lot of out-of-the-box functionalities."
"In general, we use web services to integrate this solution with our other tools. It is the main approach we use with this solution and it integrates with all tools that we need. If you want to integrate with other solutions such ThreatFire or similar, it is possible as well."
"The solution is operating well overall."
"It is easy to use, easy to understand, easy to implement and easy to enhance and we can do it as a Cloud. Also it is very user friendly."
"The best part of Pega, for me, is that they let you reuse a lot of the aspects in the product."
"While Pega technical support is okay, it also depends on the issues you need help with and who your contact is with Pega."
"This solution is useful for business process management if you have any banking solutions or need to manage a process."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"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."
"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."
"The business model could be easier to understand."
"The cockpit features of the Camunda Platform can be improved to make it a bit more user-friendly, in terms of providing a bit more user experience for non-technical users. There could be some additional documentation added."
"The only drawback is the time that it takes to have a complete set of workflows implemented on the Camunda platform."
"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."
"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."
"The user interface needs some polishing because it is too technical for end-users to use it."
"It should have integration with non-relational databases. A lot of databases are non-relational, and as a company, we are planning to move to NoSQL or open-source databases. It would be good if we are able to install and use Pega on a NoSQL database. They can also try to tailor or organize the company a bit differently and go more towards the microservice concept. I would like Pega to develop machine learning and intelligent AI algorithms. They have a good foundation in terms of the model and the stuff that we are using for some customers, and it will be good to onboard as many machine learning algorithms as possible."
"We need more light retail BPM tools within the Pega system. However, Pega is mostly for big companies."
"Business specific functionality is needed."
"UI needs improvement."
"If it could also be integrated with robotics, it could help with a lot of things, even if we don't have APIs, we could still talk to other applications. If it could invoke a bot, for example."
"The UI part needs improvement."
"They are currently spending some time on improving the product with respect to machine learning, especially related to robotic automation. They probably could be a little more adept on that area would help."
"There have been some performance scalability issues. Suppose you want to add more users. You go from, say, 800 users to 1,500 users, and sometimes that creates issues for which there is no clear explanation. To fix it you have to escalate it with customer service and sometimes the response is not up to the mark in resolving those issues."
Camunda is ranked 1st in Business Process Management (BPM) with 69 reviews while Pega BPM is ranked 3rd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 55 reviews. Camunda is rated 8.2, while Pega BPM is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Camunda writes "Open-source, easy to define new processes, and easy to transition to new business process definitions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pega BPM writes "Low code with great APIs and good flexibility". Camunda is most compared with Apache Airflow, Bizagi, IBM BPM, Appian and Bonita, whereas Pega BPM is most compared with ServiceNow, Appian, Microsoft Power Apps, IBM BPM and OutSystems. See our Camunda vs. Pega BPM 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.
