Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Camunda vs QualiWare X comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

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
78
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (1st), Process Automation (1st), Business Orchestration and Automation Technologies (3rd), AI Software Development (2nd), AI Customer Support (8th), AI IT Support (6th)
QualiWare X
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
46th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Architecture Management (21st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Business Process Management (BPM) category, the mindshare of Camunda is 9.9%, down from 21.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of QualiWare X is 0.7%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Management (BPM) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Camunda9.9%
QualiWare X0.7%
Other89.4%
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.
Gavin Bérubé - PeerSpot reviewer
Enterprise Architect at a comms service provider with 5,001-10,000 employees
Works as a reference for architecture but not very intuitive
We use the solution as a reference for architecture so that we can connect business data applications. The tool helps us to know how these applications should be built. We use it mainly as reference material.  I like the solution's traceability.  The solution is not easy and intuitive to use. I…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The architectural part of Camunda for workflow design is highly valuable, especially the Camunda Modeler, which allows quick process design and implementation."
"I can use any other tools to create services and the UI, and then use them together with the Camunda BPMN engine."
", Camunda can be a powerful tool to work with when used in an optimized and well-implemented manner."
"The flexibility characteristic in a BPMS, through BPMN and DMN, is undoubtedly the most interesting feature for our business."
"We can easily define and deploy business processes. Camunda provides the tools that allow business people to design business processes. We don't have to have developers for it. It is so easy to use that our business people can go into the tool and model their business processes. We get time to do other things than just designing business processes."
"Overall, the solution has been very solid."
"One valuable feature of the solution is its flexibility."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share the logic within the rules engine with the business, so you can put it up for everybody to read."
"I like the solution's traceability."
 

Cons

"The latency of API could be decreased."
"I don't like the UI of the Camunda Platform, I have found the Signavio solution to be much better for me to create the process designs and execute them. Additionally, I have found the tools in the Camunda Platform are not compatible with some of my other tools. They should improve this in the future."
"Initial setup can be quite complex."
"The user interface needs improvement. It should be more tailored to the end-user and offer a better user experience design over the user interface itself."
"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 would be better if the tool were made less reliant on Java."
"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."
"If they could build some scripts or some configuration to get it up and running in a Docker environment, that would be good. I didn't find anything when on Docker, however, maybe they have something and I didn't see it yet."
"The solution is not easy and intuitive to use. I would also like the software to have a reference metamodel that can guide the modeling."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Generally, the price could be better, as well as the licensing fees."
"I think Camunda BPM can improve their licensing costs. It isn't easy to find clients with Camunda BPM licenses mainly because it's quite expensive."
"Camunda has a free service as well as a commercial service. We are using the free service."
"We use the free version."
"We're using the open-source version for now."
"The price of the solution is reasonable."
"The license is quite expensive, which is why we went with the community version."
"Compared to other software, Camunda Platform is quite cost-effective."
"I would rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten since it's pretty expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Management (BPM) solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
26%
Computer Software Company
12%
Insurance Company
6%
Government
6%
Government
30%
Computer Software Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Media Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business43
Midsize Enterprise15
Large Enterprise29
No data available
 

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Camunda BPM
No data available
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

24 Hour Fitness, Accruent, AT&T Inc., Atlassian, CSS Insurance, Deutsche Telekom, Generali, Provinzial NordWest Insurance Services, Swisscom AG, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, VHV Group, Zalando
Emiliambiente, OLI, Galletti, Hiref, Bugatti, Argelli, Culligan Italiana, Sal, Stefal Cablaggi, BrainBee Automotive, Varvel, Campagnola, Favini, G.F., Gruppo ROLD
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda vs. QualiWare X and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.