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

Camunda vs SS&C Blue Prism comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 20, 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 Design
1st
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
1st
Ranking in Process Automation
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
77
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SS&C Blue Prism
Ranking in Business Process Design
21st
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
33rd
Ranking in Process Automation
27th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Medical Insurance Claims Software (3rd), Insurance Claims Processing (5th), Document Management Software (14th), Low-Code Development Platforms (25th), Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) (16th), Loan Management Software (2nd), Document Automation Software (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Business Process Design category, the mindshare of Camunda is 12.5%, up from 10.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SS&C Blue Prism is 0.3%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Design
 

Featured Reviews

FABIO NAGAO - PeerSpot reviewer
Reduces costs with hardware abstraction and simplifies scaling
There is an issue where, in some situations, I need to scale up by observing both CPU and memory usage of containers, yet under the current options available at Amazon, this is not possible. I have to choose between monitoring CPU or memory to scale my solution. Not every software is built for deployment as a container service, although the current architecture trend is changing this.
Gavin Beckett - PeerSpot reviewer
Design studio enables effective automation while licensing needs improvement
I noticed that it lacks the ability to automatically record the process steps like some of its competitors. Having this capability could accelerate the process. The delivery methodology felt somewhat waterfall in style and not sufficiently agile. Additionally, the licensing model was somewhat prohibitive. It was not developed in a consumption-based manner, however, rather in a fixed-price licensing model that did not account for volumes.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It allows me to present or to demonstrate the business process flow, visually, without having to resort to PowerPoint, Visio, or other products."
"The most valuable feature is the scheduling."
"It's user friendly, much better than most tools I have seen."
"Overall, the solution has been very solid."
"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."
"We are using the BPMN engine of Camunda; we are not using the user interface. We are using just the engine, the back end of this. For us, it is working quite well."
"It is simple to use. The user experience is very good."
"Camunda is a scalable product."
"Some important features include the language capabilities, which are crucial since RPA has to read the documents provided by the customer."
"The key feature of SS&C that I find valuable is the general workflow visibility."
"I find the design studio, where I can build the automation, and the control room feature, which allows me to run and monitor the automation, to be the most useful."
 

Cons

"The user interface needs some polishing because it is too technical for end-users to use it."
"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."
"An improvement would be to support Angular 2 instead of AngularJS, which is quite old."
"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 business model could be easier to understand."
"It lacks some preset features and configurations which would make it more plug-and-play for customers."
"Initially, installation was challenging, but recent improvements have made it much easier."
"Community support is basically what I'm looking for. Other than that, it is okay for now."
"I noticed that it lacks the ability to automatically record the process steps like some of its competitors."
"Blue Prism is more costly than UiPath in terms of robotic licenses and orchestrators."
"There is a need for improved integration with external systems in SS&C."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Cheaper licensing and resources than competitors"
"Compared to other software, Camunda Platform is quite cost-effective."
"There were some features that were only available in the paid version."
"The most attractive feature of the product is that it is open source."
"We pay for the license of this solution annually."
"Licensing costs are anywhere from $80,000 to $100,000 USD per year."
"We are using the open-source version of this solution."
"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."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Design solutions are best for your needs.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
27%
Computer Software Company
14%
Government
6%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
25%
Computer Software Company
18%
Insurance Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
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...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SS&C Blue Prism?
The pricing was not particularly competitive. It wasn't flexible for different geographies. For instance, in Africa, they didn't have a different pricing model to account for affordability. The pri...
What needs improvement with SS&C Blue Prism?
There is a need for improved integration with external systems in SS&C. Currently, integration is limited to web services and K scripts for connecting to third-party systems, which I believe ca...
What is your primary use case for SS&C Blue Prism?
My primary use case for SS&C is managing migration projects. We are currently working on migrating from ViewStation's 3.5 version using K scripts to the new version in SS&C and rebuilding t...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Camunda BPM
SS&C AWD
 

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
AWS, EY, Deloitte, ABBYY, Microsoft, GLYNT.AI, Pfizer, Invesco, Western Union
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda vs. SS&C Blue Prism and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.