Camunda Reviews

We leverage Camunda for two different use cases in Santander Brazil. I used and we used to have an orchestration flow for processing new credit approvals. Once the customer requested a new credit on the Santander mobile app, they received the confirmation instantly, online, but asynchronously, we had several updates and documentation to prepare in order to make back-office processes complete. The customer received the instant confirmation, but we used to have a long-running process with several steps running in parallel and asynchronously, and those steps were orchestrated through Camunda. That was one use case, basically API orchestration in an asynchronous process with no human interaction.

We leveraged Camunda for the back-office processes for Santander Esfera, which is a loyalty program from Santander in Brazil. It is mainly a marketplace where customers can use loyalty points to redeem products. The order management process for that marketplace used to run through Camunda as well, leveraging APIs and in some cases, handling exceptions and human interaction.

Camunda's support for BPMN 2.0 is a great advantage because it allows us to have a common language to discuss technology and business in the same perspective. This capability used to allow us to anticipate issues and discussions with the business and product teams.

Since they are basically a fork from Activiti, which was a lightweight architecture that would allow us to run the process in a way we used to call the process API or a headless process. There was no need to deploy and run heavy and large tools and frameworks and middlewares, allowing us to embed the process engine inside our Java applications. That was another advantage, and it worked fairly well with cloud environments. The limitation they have with transactional databases that ultimately they were able to get rid of when they launched Zeebe was not really an issue for us. We did not have the scale and transaction volume that would make a need for such a high throughput environment. The standard or original Camunda deployment with a transactional database was more than enough for our use cases.

The learning curve for understanding how it works and deploying the first processes, especially for those people who have a background in Java, seemed to be a really fast-paced adoption for us. When we compared with other process automation tools such as Pega and IBM BPM, Camunda seemed a better approach for us.

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.

With Camunda they have a tool called Cockpit. We measured the time for each step individually because each activity in the process was an API call to an external API in a different legacy system. We used to track the performance and other metrics on those specifically. We were not really concerned about the performance on the process itself because it was super simple, super straightforward, and it did not present itself as a bottleneck, nor did we feel it was adding additional time in the execution. For us, the process itself was fairly seamless.

Camunda integrates well. They have that REST layer, REST APIs layer that makes it easy to integrate and make it part of a microservices ecosystem and APIs. That worked pretty well. We had some specific processes that were API orchestration processes, and the starting of the process was an API call directly through the Camunda engine. It played fairly seamless with no big issues on that deployment.

The support for Camunda is great. The team is very responsive. They really understand deeply and in detailed fashion the solution. Any issue you have, they answer back right away. For the support, they made a great job. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate them a 10 for support.

Positive

We purchased the license for Camunda. It was not simple, and at the end of the day, it is an expensive tool. I think for enterprises, it pays itself pretty well, but for startups and teams that are trying to make some tests and understand if the tool is the best solution for their specific scenarios, the pricing model right now is a concern.

I could not even purchase a version straight from their portal. I had to contact sales and then fill out a form, a representative team in Brazil received the form but did not get in touch. It is not really self-service, and I would prefer to have something where you can just put your credit card and use the tool as you want. That lack of transparency is an issue for us right now.

When we compared Camunda to other options for running back-office processes at Santander Brazil, those credit processes have very large profit margins. So any tool running on those processes would be of good return. When compared to Pega and IBM, we made the bet for the cost of development. With IBM specifically, we had the license already because we had other tools and contracts. But the development was not as straightforward, and the running infrastructure costs for running and setting up the tool was not cheap. It was more expensive than running the process embedded in our Java applications, the way we did with Camunda. For the total cost of ownership, Camunda seemed to be the best option, but it is not cheap.

I would rate Camunda a 7 out of 10. It is a great tool with great support, though licensing is not so good, and evolution-wise, they are not investing as much as they should. I do not think Zeebe is a no-brainer evolution for Camunda as the two products are very different.

Camunda is focused on workflow automation and decision automation. We are using this in networks and for change management, assurance automation, and for cybersecurity automation.

In my opinion, the best features of Camunda are found in Cawemo, where we are forced to describe and specify what we are doing, enabling us to automate our processes. This is the most important thing, as we need to document what the business requires and make it zero touch. It is the magic.

Regarding orchestrating complex end-to-end business processes, we use Camunda especially for complex cases but also for simple ones. If we have sub-processes, we leverage Camunda to manage the complexity, including DMN decisions.

The coexistence that Camunda allows is important because we are connected, using it as an orchestrator for domain controllers and various automation platforms, both legacy and new, ensuring we are independent and can operate across domains.

In terms of areas for improvement, we are struggling with organizing the BPMN workflows. It would be great to have a structure, repository, or library to manage the hundreds or thousands of BPMNs, as finding the right BPMN in Cawemo or linking it to a business process information portal is currently difficult.

I have been working with Camunda for seven years. We started back in 2019.

We have encountered issues with Optimize, as its performance in version 7 is not what we expect, causing some trouble along the way.

For stability, most use cases depend on the workflow engine with Cockpit, which is stable about 98% of the time, and I would rate stability a nine.

I would rate the technical support for Camunda an eight.

Overall, deploying Camunda is not complex. Our admins know how to manage version 7, and while they are learning about version 8, I think they have only needed to make some optimizations and that in general, deployment is not a big deal.

At the moment, we are using Camunda version 7 and are waiting for version 8. In the meantime, we are focusing on the agents part, aiming to use agents as we use scripts or service tasks and APIs, allowing us to implement agents for very complex decisions using a digital twin for effective communication with humans.

As for the return on investment, we work cross-functionally within different silos and processes, with outcomes varying widely. It can range from a one-time job not yielding good business cases to cases we repeat thousands of times, which generates significant value.

Regarding pricing, I believe it is relative to the business value. While it might be too expensive for smaller business use cases, if we can automate and have high-value cases, then Camunda's pricing makes sense, although it is not a universal solution, as it depends on the business value.

When comparing Camunda with other solutions such as Appian, Pega, and Bizagi, we conducted an assessment and have different solutions across various businesses and countries. For us, Camunda is the best choice as it fits more generically, connecting business and technical teams effectively.

I expect that a few hundred users are using the solution currently, and we aim for that number to increase. I would recommend Camunda to other users because we consistently suggest it to different businesses within our organization and across various countries, promoting the exchange of solutions. I would rate this review an eight overall.

My clients' use cases involve automating processes like BPM and agentic orchestration. I wish I could find a client that wants to do agentic orchestration. When I first used Camunda, I started by modeling BPMN and DMN models. I did a very big project for a client where we effectively automated their whole accounting within the purchasing software as an add-on. The benefit of using Camunda was having a visualization of how the accounting rules and regulations were implemented. From my background as a German tax consultant, I understand accountancy rules, and therefore was able to use Camunda to build all of that myself within the framework of BPMN and DMN.

The best features in Camunda that come to mind are the incredible development of the functionalities. When we started the project, we were beginning with brand new Camunda 8. It was all very new and fresh. During the course of the project, which took two years plus, Camunda just improved and added very useful features that made my life much easier. I am impressed with the speed of the development and the quality of the development. The other thing that stands out completely is the customer support. If you run into an issue either on your own because you made a mistake in the modeling, they are very quick to help and very helpful. The customer support is outstanding.

In my project, the deployment of Camunda was all cloud-based. I assume it was AWS. For German companies, it is always very important that it is a German cloud provider.

In Camunda, areas that have room for improvement include the process OS they are working on, and they have gotten better on that. I am not an IT person, and the setup that we had during my project was very helpful for me to put me into a position to develop a solution on my own, which Camunda off the shelf does not do easily. I am not sure if that use case makes sense for them or if I am asking for something impossible or if that is even the space that they want to be in. I always need an IT person to build me a setup so I can go on and use Camunda's modeler to make processes run and decision models run on their own and also for the agentic features. The setup, the way it is right now, is the best setup that is useful because at a certain point, you always need the IT person. You need the developer to make sure that the technical aspects of whatever you are building are functioning properly because I do not know how to do that.

I started using Camunda in late twenty twenty one.

In terms of product stability on a scale from one to ten, I would rate it as nine.

When it comes to scalability, I would rate it as ten.

On a scale from one to ten, I rate the technical support of Camunda as ten.

When comparing Camunda with other solutions, my experience with other vendors is mainly with Signavio, which was bought by SAP. I think we seem to have a bit of lag after being acquired by SAP. They have slowed down their development or have focused on features that are not really useful to me. While Signavio got worse and worse, Camunda got better and better. The speed of development and being cutting edge with technology has always impressed me. I would love to have more opportunities to find clients that want to build Camunda projects with me.

Regarding deployment in Camunda, I would say it felt really simple. As I mentioned, I am not the tech person, so it was a colleague that set all that up. The outcome of that project was that the person I worked with was working for a smaller software development company. After the project, he joined Camunda to set up a separate offering within Camunda to integrate it with an SAP background, and that made it pretty easy to deploy. The amazing thing for me was how easy it was to deploy new processes and changes in the process models. That was super easy, super efficient, and super quick. If you can change the content of your solution by amending one or two BPMN models, deploying those BPMN models to production, and then the new process, the content of the software has been changed by someone not a developer within a matter of minutes, that is very impressive.

For my big project, those were not long-running processes, but I think Camunda should manage that very well because their whole suite enables that, especially to look at every instance of the process and see where that is within the process, what stage it is at, and which actions are still pending. You can see all of that, so that is basically not an issue. It is working very well.

Regarding pricing, I think Camunda has a pricing model that only works for bigger companies. They are not looking at mid-tier companies or smaller entities like SMEs. Maybe the larger end of SMEs would be potential customers, but normally, they are looking at the big-ticket corporates because of their pricing. I do not know if it is just not possible to run the whole environment at a rate that would be affordable. It would be interesting if it was possible. For the project that I was working on, they were offering us a trial period for free, while other companies wanted quite a bit of money just for the proof of concept, where Camunda was very affordable. I think Camunda is fine price-wise but unfortunately a bit too expensive for smaller companies. That makes sense. The pricing depends on the circumstances. In my project, we were working with a big enterprise corporate. There is a lot of potential to help SMEs, and those are not in the pricing target range of Camunda at the moment. I do not know if that is ever going to change, whereas they just see the opportunities in corporates because that is where the impact of whatever you are building is much bigger. The price is always acceptable if you can create an amount of savings that is substantial; then the price is not the issue. But if you are a smaller company, then the savings automatically cannot be that big if you improve your processes, and then the pricing becomes more important.

I have not personally implemented an AI agent in Camunda, but what I have seen in their demos and how they are able to demo that live on stage is very impressive. I would love to have a project where a client is willing to use the agentic AI and help them set that up and build that out. Also, the process OS, that is the new thing they are doing. I would love to be involved in a project about that, but I myself have no proper use case for that as a freelance consultant on my own.

I have been recommending Camunda since the first time I have used it, so I would always recommend it. Unfortunately, some of my clients do not have the budget or the strategic potential to use it. Mostly, it is a budget constraint, especially at the moment with many companies just not willing to spend. I rate this review overall as a ten out of ten.

We use Camunda for network orchestration, which is a combination of BPMN and DMN that we use in our implementation.

The best features of Camunda are the design time and run time aspects, as you can visualize the whole process and then integrate your network SMEs or allow business design and developers to collaborate on the workflow. This is the best aspect because everything is visual and leaves little room for error in terms of how requirements are being interpreted.

Camunda has room for improvement, and I believe some of this feedback has already been taken up in Camunda 8. We are currently running a Camunda 7 installation, and the external task management has room for improvement. With Camunda 8 moving to gRPC calls, I think that will help with the issues we have seen. For our implementation, the only issue we have encountered is that when it comes to scaling with external tasks, it struggles on Camunda 7.

I have been working with Camunda for almost five and a half to six years.

The stability of Camunda I would rate about a nine out of ten, as it is fairly stable. We have not had any issues; the only issues we have seen are around our own database or RDBMS layer, which is not really related to Camunda directly.

I would rate the technical support an eight.

It is easy to deploy Camunda 7. Camunda 8 is a bit more challenging, but the support we receive as part of the enterprise license helps us work around the problems we are facing. Camunda 7 is definitely straightforward, which is what we are currently running, and we are making progress with Camunda 8. It is obviously a different model of installation and how the services have been split, but with support, I think it is pretty straightforward.

The return on investment I see is probably somewhere around fifteen to twenty.

When we compare Camunda with other solutions such as Pega and Bizagi, we evaluated alternatives five to six years ago. Within our organization, there were other workflow engines in use. The benefit of Camunda for us at that point was that we started with the community edition, and there was an Open Network Orchestration Platform, which was an open source project for doing network orchestration that had a Camunda engine embedded as part of their framework. This is how we became aware of Camunda, and because of the ONAP aspect, we could literally plug and play a lot of code from the ONAP foundation into what we had to implement. We started with open source and then moved to the enterprise license. It is easy to start up, conduct your POCs, and get it into production, which is a differentiator for us against the other BPMN engines we have seen.

Our impressions of Camunda for orchestrating complex end-to-end business processes indicate that while my use case is not complex, I know other parts of our organization use it for more complex processes, so it is definitely capable of orchestrating complex processes.

We do not use the AI aspects of Camunda because we have our own AI framework.

The number of users who use Camunda directly is less than ten because we do not expose the cockpit or any of the Camunda apps directly to the end user. We have our own portal or UI from which the journeys are driven, so approximately ten users use it.

I would recommend Camunda. The approach we took was to pick the simplest use case, implement it, and learn while implementing, then think about more complex scenarios. On the enterprise support side, we used it more to review our models. Our development team writes the Java delegates and the actual code behind it, but the main benefits we see are reviewing the BPMNs and the use of external tasks versus other best practices. That is what I would definitely recommend people leverage if they are deciding to go ahead with Camunda as their workflow engine.

Camunda handles long running processes that run for days, weeks, or months. We have processes that run for months, and ultimately it depends on your implementation, but it is more than capable of handling long running processes and we do not see any issues.

I would rate this review a nine out of ten.

Our primary use of ECS is to host all our services in the cloud. We work in the legal sector, and our workloads are often deployed on Fargate containers or Azure containers to abstract the hardware.

EC2 makes scaling horizontally incredibly easy, especially when working under the ECS service. Nowadays, I almost never need to create instances of virtual machines because most workloads can be deployed on Fargate containers. This abstraction of hardware reduces the need to think about it. 

My costs are reduced. Working with ECS and Fargate doesn't require saving processing units for idle services. Previously, using EC2 required keeping entire virtual machines running, however, Fargate eliminates this cost. ECS also allows for horizontal scalability with thresholds that can be configured for CPU or memory.

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.

I host everything in the cloud, and I have over ten years of experience. I use EC2 as a hosting technology and have been using it for a long time.

My services running on ECS are also on Azure Container Service. I have never experienced any flicker or downtime. These are highly available services. It's very stable.

ECS and Fargate make horizontal scalability very easy. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. It allows for easy scaling, especially with ECS service configurations.

The AWS Support is incredible. They always invite us for meetings to showcase new solutions. I have a very good relationship with AWS, Microsoft, and GCP for support. AWS provides the best support, followed by Microsoft, and then Google.

Positive

Setting up ECS is simple, although there are some tricks involved. I usually have to define private and public networks and bind all related services. It's easy but not super straightforward. I had to repeat the process two or three times before I could teach others how to configure it.

Hosting services on Fargate reduces our processing costs since we don't need to keep virtual machines running for workloads anymore. This results in cost reductions.

AWS pricing is very competitive compared to Azure and cheap compared to Google. For some services, such as hosting databases, Google is really expensive.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate ECS a ten out of ten. It's an incredible service, and I prefer it over Kubernetes. I suggest checking the integration of software for deployment in a serverless environment. Some software can be challenging to deliver this way.

Camunda can be used in various workflow scenarios, such as policy administration systems, onboarding, account management in telecom, insurance products, policy issuance, claims management, and loan management. 

It is also suitable for customer service center activities where customers' accounts are created. Camunda can manage any workflow that requires customer interaction with the system. It is a competitor to other BPM solutions like Pega.

The architectural part of Camunda for workflow design is highly valuable, especially the Camunda Modeler, which allows quick process design and implementation. Camunda's DML is a competitor to the implementation of business rules. 

It integrates well with Java, making it suitable for various technology stacks. Camunda facilitates microservices integration. Its SaaS model provides scalability, automatically managing and scaling implementations.

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.

I began working with Camunda in 2013.

Camunda is quite stable, and I would rate its stability around eight to nine out of ten. There haven't been any significant outages in my experience with Camunda.

Camunda offers a high level of scalability, especially when using its SaaS model, which manages and scales implementations automatically. I would rate its scalability a ten out of ten.

Camunda's community is medium-sized, offering reasonable support. However, they provide better support for the enterprise edition. There was not a large community in the early years.

Positive

Other competing solutions include JBPM, Activiti, and Pegasystems.

The initial setup can be difficult, with a rating of seven on a scale from one to ten. While not very hard, some features present challenges.

For earlier versions, implementation involved bundling applications as WAR or EAR files using Maven, and deploying them on JBoss Server. I have yet to explore Camunda 8's implementation process.

There is a licensing cost for using the SaaS model and Enterprise edition of Camunda, although I am not aware of the specific pricing.

Other solutions evaluated include JBPM and Activiti.

For anyone considering using Camunda, it is essential to understand your workflow clearly. Camunda is the best among similar solutions like JBPM and Activiti. I love working with Camunda.

Since I completed the courses at my workplace, I have only used Camunda for testing and practice. We had assignments to create a flow for pizza delivery and another one for an electronic shop. This practice was verified by our professor.

We have one process that was migrated from our RPA department. It used a series of UI elements for client cases, but now it is streamlined using API calls in the background. The process is more stable and efficient because it processes cases faster without being affected by UI changes like new buttons or pop-ups.

The use of Java is a big plus for our intern developers, and Camunda scales well, as many of our departments are already using it in production with dedicated teams.

The setup process is a drawback as it has many dependencies, which affects our ability to migrate to Windows eleven due to security concerns. I would like to see better integration with the Microsoft suite and more language options, especially for our internal applications.

I've been using Camunda for a few months. 

I have not experienced any performance or stability issues. It runs smoothly.

Camunda is more scalable than Blue Prism. It supports entire process automation, including manual tasks, not just robotic processes.

There was no need to escalate any questions to Camunda's tech support. However, I have escalated issues for UiPath and Blueprints.

Positive

Our department used Blueprints since 2020. The transition to Camunda is challenging since people are familiar with the previous tool.

The initial setup was guided by the professor's guidelines and involved installing several programs and agreeing on a Java version. After setup approval and training, we encountered some issues that were addressed with help from the professor.

The transcript does not contain specific information about ROI.

I don't know the exact numbers behind cost-effectiveness. I know licenses for the other tools, like UiPath and Blueprints, become more costly over time since they require annual renewal.

I also have experience with other process automation solutions like Blue Prism, UiPath, Power Automate, and Blueprint.

I would recommend Camunda because Java is well-received and encourages clean code standards. The tool's visual appeal makes it accessible to both developers and business analysts. BPMN notation familiarity is a plus.

I'd rate the solution nine out fo ten.

Our common use case for Camunda is working on seeing how we can replace Bonita with it for some projects.

We are trying to replace Bonita, especially because the reporting in Camunda seems to be more developed than Bonita's tools.

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.

I have to experiment with the performance of Camunda, but not yet in production. I haven't put any solutions in production yet, so perhaps performance is better as we see in documentation.

I have been working with Camunda for six months.

We have to wait to see if Bonita provided us with some features that Camunda does not or if we experience any stability issues.

I have not yet had any downtime that required raising tickets or any integration issues because Camunda does not support some of my tools or data.

I have not contacted the Camunda Technical Support team at any point, though perhaps members of my team have.

For the initial setup, the whole process takes about one day perhaps, two days, as the process is simple and we don't have any difficulties.

We are using the open-source community version, but I don't have an idea about the cost of enterprise edition to make a comparison.

Regarding pricing, we are right now working with the open-source Community version, but I don't have yet an idea about the cost of the enterprise edition.

I can talk about our experience with Camunda. For the moment, we are not using any sort of AI with Camunda at all, but for other technology, we use AI.

I am a co-founder of that enterprise.

I rate Camunda an eight out of ten for the moment because I don't really understand the exact parameters of the scale. It is still in proof of concept, and when it goes into production, I will have more ideas on how it should be done.

We use the workflow only in Camunda. It acts as libraries for workflow visualization, focusing on automating my company's processes.

Camunda is used for process automation with the bot automation. We use API from IPT software, and Camunda serves as a service for workflows. It has improved the cost benefits on Google Cloud.

Camunda serves as an automation library and provides lightweight deployment to the cloud. The personal thing for workflow automation is significant.

Camunda needs to improve its user interface for low-code development and provide more user interface options beyond the basic workflow. It also requires further development to compete with platform features, like the deployment and development life cycle.

We started using Camunda one year ago and began implementing some processes on the platform.

Camunda has benefits concerning the cost on Google Cloud, however, we have to invest more in development for scalability.

We have used IBM BPM before, however, Camunda was adopted for certain processes. Camunda doesn't require a license and offers a free version.

Camunda is cheap because it doesn't require a license. We can use the free version and manage everything in the company.

We plan to use Camunda workflows and relate them to IBM BPM in the future.

Camunda's platform could benefit from better UI for low-code development. Other competitor platforms have more comprehensive tools for deployment and development.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We use it in telecom service management to automate and orchestrate our service order flows.

There is DMN (Decision Model and Notation) on the flows, but it depends on how the user interprets the question. If it's purely decision-making, then not really. It's a feature of the platform we use but not the main one. 

The main feature is the BPMN orchestration workflow engine.

We had to look for a replacement because our old tool didn't evolve anymore. Camunda is a further evolution or branch of activity. There are certain branches of workflow engine tools, and Camunda seems to have a lot of traction, maturity, and stability. It also matches the need for agile development. 

In terms of efficiency and execution, we're satisfied. In terms of design, you still need to create the design and give it to someone else, but the graphical user interface is fine.

The fact that it's open source is interesting. My colleagues like the support, even the free or basic support. We now have enterprise support, but they were quite satisfied with the basic one. 

The main feature is BPMN, in its totality. You have the design, editor, monitoring, execution, scaling, and deployment. So, it's the total package that they're quite happy with.

Probably one area I look forward to has to do with AI and how Camunda sees the AI angle on workflow. I know they're working on that or at least communicating about it. They already have versions to run on the cloud, so they've tackled that. We're looking at what they will come up with otherwise. 

As long as the product gets enough traction and evolves, we're happy. With open source, you can monitor what's happening. If the product is being left by many customers, that's a sign. We're also users of Camunda, and you can watch one of our guides' presentations in the States about one of our implementations.

Our focus now is on developing service management and DMN APIs for the platform. AI is something we take into consideration, but we'll see what additional benefits it could bring and how to interconnect it with our data or AI engineering.

I have been using it for three years. I use the latest version. 

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. No major things to worry about.

I would rate the scalability as eight out of ten, and it could be improved. I am not 100% sure of its scalability capabilities. We haven't done enough volumes on it. 

The system is primarily for automated flows. Maybe there are 20 or 25 people who use the production version as a user. It's not really a system with a lot of manual stuff. For us, I would assume the usage is rather limited at this stage.

It is used in production every day. We plan to increase the use of Camunda in the future. 

We now have an enterprise contract because of the increasing volume in production. We want to ensure we have good enough SLAs, so we probably bought the enterprise support. 

Positive

We had plenty of workflow engines in that domain. The company used Oracle BPEL, a workflow product that was originally open source but was bought by Oracle a long time ago and then became a paid license product.

Other products in different domains: 

We've got SAP HR modules and logistics modules, and we've migrated a few to SAP HANA, but I'm not the best reference for that domain. 

In our multiple domains, we have a mix of commercial and technical platforms. We use Camunda for custom development, and ClickSoftware for field work management, which we're migrating to IFS.

For the setup, I'd probably rate it a nine out of ten. I'm not personally involved, but it's quite easy.

• Deployment resources: It's probably only one or two people who were busy installing the product. I don't think it's a huge problem or challenge.

• Integration aspect: There was a bit of a challenge, but it was resolved by redesigning an activity in the process flow. It wasn't a huge problem, but the people had to figure out how to use existing mechanisms to solve it.
• We can resolve the challenges that might arise in Camunda using the features on the platform. It might not be immediately out of the box, but we can find a setup or pattern that brings us the solution. We can extend the framework. I haven't really seen blocking factors at this stage, and I know of other companies that use it, so it looks alright.

• For the maintenance part, I assume it's quite a small team. 

It's a license for support. So, it's not too expensive, in my opinion.

Development teams use open source components, do a small check on different tools, and then go for one. I don't think there was a specific RFP (request for proposal) process involved, but I'm pretty sure they looked at the market. They looked at other workflow engines like Activity in previous projects.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

My advice:

New buyers should definitely look at this option. It's a good option as the product is technically sound. There are quite a few customers running on the platform and good reference customers. There is a community forum, and the documentation is readily available. So, if you are investigating options, it should definitely be on your list, if not at the number one spot.

Recent trends around workflow automation:

We see a lot of cloud SaaS solutions coming up with their own workflow platforms. For example, SAP or Salesforce also come with workflow systems. You need to consider that these platforms have embedded options where you have no choice but to use them. But if you have spots where you do your own development or there is a package that uses Camunda, the interesting part will be what steps they provide to work with the data and AI to make the solution even more attractive.