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

Camunda vs Red Hat Polymita Business Suite comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 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)
Red Hat Polymita Business S...
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
53rd
Average Rating
10.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
1
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 Red Hat Polymita Business Suite is 0.6%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Management (BPM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Camunda7.1%
Red Hat Polymita Business Suite0.6%
Other92.3%
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.
LY
Partner at a tech services company with 1-10 employees
Gives you the ability to design the screens outside the software and connect them as a component with the BPM engine
On the improvement part, I think the documentation for the tool, the official documentation, is not as strong as in other tools. You have lot of community. That is good. But sometimes you need - when you are working on a big client or a critical process - to be certain about certain things. So I think that the documentation for the tool, from the company, could be a little stronger. Also, the size of the team within Latin America. The size of the team that, in each country, knows about BPM - because of the size of Red Hat in comparison with the size of IBM or Oracle - is very little. You have maybe three or four people in the company, in Red Hat Mexico, that know about BPM; and in Peru, maybe one, who also needs to know about five other tools. You have help there, but sometimes you don't need that kind of help. You need to sit down with someone and take a good amount of time and discuss a process to solve a problem. It's a consequence of the size. IBM and Oracle are monsters. They have, say, 100 more employees than Red Hat. That is the problem. But on the other side, the price is good. You could pay four times less, five times less, in an average implementation with Red Hat than with IBM. So there is a trade-off.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"On a scale of one to ten, I rate ECS a ten out of ten."
"Using such a solution gives our clients great flexibility and a short time to market for new product implementations."
"Camunda is actually very good and easy for orchestrating complex end-to-end business processes."
"EC2 makes scaling horizontally incredibly easy, especially when working under the ECS service."
"Camunda's process diagram creation and deployment is very easy."
"Camunda serves as an automation library and provides lightweight deployment to the cloud."
"I think that the positives of Camunda Platform are that our customers can start with the free version, and for testing and learning purposes it is perfect."
"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."
"The most important benefit is to have a good solution at a good price that enables Red Hat BPM users to develop their own front end in the language and schemes that suit them best."
"The main factor that separates Red Hat software from Oracle, IBM, Pegasystems, is the ability that it gives you to design the screens outside the software and connect it as another component with the BPM engine."
 

Cons

"Process interfaces between diagrams could be improved."
"In the latest version, there are certain workflow nodes that are missing. Camunda should bring those back, or rather, develop them quickly."
"Without a proper frontend, the business cannot effectively use the platform."
"The solution's initial setup has a medium level of difficulty. Maybe someone who is starting out and doesn't have any experience with any other framework may get into some headaches."
"Probably one area I look forward to has to do with AI and how Camunda sees the AI angle on workflow."
"It has a Postgres database at the backend, and it is very difficult to scale if you increase the number of processes running. We did hit some barriers. We were able to overcome them, but it was a problem. Camunda has another product called Camunda Cloud, which supposedly doesn't have the same scalability problems, but we are not using Camunda Cloud because the set of features is smaller than Camunda On-Premises. So, its scalability can be improved. Because it has a single database, it is more difficult to scale if you have a huge success."
"I think Camunda is focusing too much on the SaaS offering right now and not much on improving and developing the product itself."
"Like all BPM tools, they're very bad with proprietary UIs. In general, anyone who uses BPM tools should not expect to use their proprietary UI."
"On the improvement part, I think the documentation for the tool, the official documentation, is not as strong as in other tools."
"I think the documentation for the tool, the official documentation, is not as strong as in other tools. You have lot of community. That is good. But sometimes you need - when you are working on a big client or a critical process - to be certain about certain things. So I think that the documentation for the tool, from the company, could be a little stronger."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We pay for the license of this solution annually."
"The license is quite expensive, which is why we went with the community version."
"We use the free version."
"The price of the solution is reasonable."
"Generally, the price could be better, as well as the licensing fees."
"The open-source version of the product is free to use."
"We're using the free version. We used the Enterprise version for some time. If I compare free versus what we paid at that time, the Enterprise version costs a lot. For the additional functionality that we got with the Enterprise version, it was too costly."
"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."
"Without any discount, you need tools that cost roughly between $80,000 to $100,000. That is less than with IBM. And on top of that you need the consulting. That will be another $200,000. So a quarter to a third of a million dollars is needed to use get started with BPM. So I usually recommend to my clients that they begin with a little project, with the community version. That way they don't spend $200,000 or $300,000, they spend $150,000 and zero on software."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Management (BPM) solutions are best for your needs.
908,858 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%
No data available
 

Company Size

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

Also Known As

Camunda BPM
Polymita Business Suite
 

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
Bayer, Grupo Televisa, RCBC, Peavey
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Automation Anywhere, Pega and others in Business Process Management (BPM). Updated: July 2026.
908,858 professionals have used our research since 2012.