Camunda Reviews

It is used in the same way that Azure and IBM BPM work.

We use the Camunda Platform for Banking services.

Camunda Platform is better than IBM BPM, and Azure. It is more elaborate. 

It is divided across the platform.

The integration is separated as well as the UI, and the internal work.

It also integrates well.

I would like to see better pricing.

I have been using the Camunda Platform for a couple of months.

Camunda Platform can be deployed both on-premises and on the cloud.

We are not using the most recent version, but an internet version while the Cloud version is being developed.

We are currently using the Enterprise Edition.

The Camunda Platform is stable enough.

Camunda is a scalable solution.

We have 10 to 15 users per site.

We have not contacted technical support.

The installation is quite straightforward.

You log into the Camunda website and download the folder to install it directly.

The installation process took 20 to 25 minutes.

We configured the integration and the UI.

Generally, the price could be better, as well as the licensing fees. 

We have not yet explored all that Camunda Platform offers.

We would recommend this solution to others who are considering using it.

I would rate Camunda Platform a nine out of ten.

We are currently concentrating majorly on our clients in telecommunication. We are also working with new and existing federal clients and proposing Camunda Platform to them.

We are using its latest version. We are currently in the development phase. It is in our local environment, but we are planning to be cloud-based. Going forward, we will create a Jenkins Pipeline and deploy it onto the Azure cloud.

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.

They have a migration plugin that can be used to migrate from one BPM to another BPM. It is in the beta stage since last year. If they can make it available in the market, it would be great. We are going to have a couple of migration projects for migrating from IBM BPM to Camunda, and this plugin would be useful. I have already discussed this with them two weeks ago and asked them to look into this and add it as a feature. We are expecting this plugin to be available in the next version. This is the only requirement we have at present. They keep on coming up with different features, which is helping us a lot. Its latest release that came out last month was awesome.

I have been using this solution for five years.

It is stable. I didn't face any issues in the production or development phase.

I have interacted with their technical support, and they are very helpful. When I have to work on any POC, I also directly work with the product team.

Its initial setup is straightforward.

I would advise others to verify the technology stack that they already have in place. They should check the orchestration part and see if they need to take care of any redesigning.

I would rate Camunda Platform a nine out of ten.

We have integrated Camunda workflow and decision engine into our solution that enables management and digital sales of products – Digital Product Center. We use mainly Camunda Modeler and Camunda Cockpit. For some implementations, we also used Camunda Tasklist.

Camunda is used to model and orchestrate processes. We have developed a module where for selected process steps, the user can build forms that will be used to present or gather data by the end-user.

Another module is responsible for defining the products, with business parameters, that an end-user will be able to buy on the platform. The link between product definition and process definition is also configured.

This solution did improve our product significantly. We were able to focus on the development of other modules that integrate with Camunda, and together provide a powerful tool for our clients. Using such a solution gives our clients great flexibility and a short time to market for new product implementations. 

Next to our product, we are also using the Camunda workflow and decision engine in other custom implementations. Our partners can benefit from open-source, as we did with our product, and thanks to that, we get more custom development contracts.

It is very important for us to have an engine that understands the model defined in the modeler, according to BPMN 2.0. This way, we can use the model for business and development purposes without extra workload. We noticed that the project team collaboration is more effective when we use a working process model.

Last but not least I can mention robust and flexible Camunda Rest API Integration, the lightweight process engine can be easily distributed as a microservice, multiple database support, pluggable architecture, and bpmn.io.

In the future, I would definitely like to see the process administration (migration, audit, tracking) and process evaluation (optimize) features added to the community edition. Right now, thanks to the pluggable architecture, we have built features that partially substitute the enterprise edition features.

We have been using Camunda Community Edition for six years.

We didn’t have any problems with the Camunda Community Edition on production installations. We do have experience with process instance volumes starting in hundreds a year and up to 10 million a year.

The Camunda BPMN Platform is very flexible and gives several options to deploy and scale it. Process Engine can be deployed as:

• Embedded process engine – in your custom application (ex. Spring boot application)
• Shared – Camunda deployed in Application Server or Servlet Container (can be a Spring boot app)
• Standalone instance - it can be deployed as a microservice

These options give you a wide range of possibilities to scale your application. From horizontal scaling to vertical. Moreover, it can be deployed on-premises, cloud, or private cloud, including autoscaling mechanisms.

We did not use another similar solution but we did have experience with homegrown workflow engines, embedded in business applications.

The initial setup is straightforward, especially with Spring Boot Camunda Starter. The configuration is in application.yml files.

We have an in-house team for deployment and maintenance.

There is an open-source version available, that in its core features (workflow and decision engine, modeler) is exactly the same as in the enterprise version.

My advice is to think about what is most important to your business case and choose the right version. You can always migrate to Enterprise edition.

When we started to build Digital Product Center, we evaluated several options available at that time. We decided to use Camunda due to several reasons, but primarily due to the most valuable features mentioned above.

We are using the community edition so it is hard to ask for extra features ;-) I fully understand that if we still want to benefit from the open-source version, there has to be a paid premium version, so that the product can be further developed.

We had a client who wanted to use a BPM to track user subscriptions on their website. They had 20 steps from different areas and different people who wanted to join as new users of their services. 

We had to use Camunda BPM to track those services because they used to lose track of some clients in the past. They then had to spend more, add some more steps, and add new user subscriptions for months. 

The key here was always to track a new user and guarantee that they will get subscribed to their service in good time.

There's this graphic that tells you how many lines or how many tickets are in each step. In that way, you know where you stand. I find this feature very valuable.  

These are your bottlenecks, and you can see what the tasks are, the problems, see how much time must be spent on them. Then you can propose to fix it or make some improvements to make things go faster.

Documentation can be improved. Right now, the documentation isn't properly organized. We have a lot of documentation. We follow the instructions. We follow some blogs and videos on YouTube. But it doesn't feel like we have all the information we need to implement Camunda BPM.

I have been using Camunda BPM for two years.

Camunda BPM is a stable solution.

Camunda BPM is a scalable solution. It's a JAVA-based application, and we were able to install it in AWS and do all the things we wanted to do. 

The initial setup was complex. We really needed to study and understand how it worked. It was difficult because we didn't have enough information in the manuals.

We did what was said in the manual and then wanted to do more. We watched several videos, and we started to connect the dots. With our own solutions or conclusions, we were able to implement Camunda BPM.

We implemented Camunda BPM by ourselves, in-house. 

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. I think the license for an on-premise system is about $50,000, and that's expensive when you have only 100 users.

I used Bizagi before. It's easier to implement, but the problem is that you have to use their suite. You have to use their screen, their admin screens, or user screens. The UX and UI experience is also not good.

We decided to go with Camunda BPM because it gave us what we needed. That is, we can get inside Camunda and use only the tracker of the application. We don't need to use mandatory things like your pages or your web forms.

We can really code what we want and use it. We can create our own UI while using Camunda BPM at the same time. We really liked that because in my company specifically, we use a lot of UX, so all the UIs were very important for us.

Camunda BPM allows us to have a BPM bot with our own UI, and that's what we liked most about Camunda.

I would advise potential Camunda BPM customers to be patient. Perhaps all the information isn't available in one click, but it's possible to implement Camunda BPM, and it's quite flexible. It's worth a try.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Camunda BPM an eight. 

We recently finished a proof of concept with Comunda, and it was successful.

Because it's a complete solution, you can start modeling to automate processes. We can also develop projects with a high degree of collaboration, which is precious for us, especially during this pandemic when we are often isolated.

Within our organization, there are roughly 20 employees using this solution.

The collaboration capabilities have proven to be a great asset during this pandemic. We can share, discuss, and develop the model together — from a distance. It's really helped us during these times of isolation.

As I mencioned, we've just finished a proof of concept, so our experience with the tool is still very recent. In general, it mets ours expectations.

Something that could be improoved is the capabilitie of integranting different modeling tools, in order to facilitate both the import and export of models.

I have been using Camunda BPM since January 2020. 

As we are still relatively new to this solution, I can't really comment on the stability; however, I know some people in the government who use this solution and they are very satisfied with the stability.

We have actually never need to consult technical support, so I can't comment on them.

I know that the IT team needed some help, fortunately, we have a good connection with them, so we worked together to set things up. In the beginning, it was kind of hard.

As we experienced some difficulties in the beginning, deployment took almost a month.

My advice: try it because it's a great solution.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Camunda BPM a rating of nine. If the initial setup was easier, I would give it a ten.

We use Camunda for the automation of the workflow and business process designer. We use the module cockpit and the workflow engine to orchestrate the process. We are a consulting company and we're not doing this for internal purposes. We mostly do this for projects, and these projects are for our clients.

The environment where we work is very dynamic and is changing a lot. So based on the circumstances, we mostly work on the delivery parts, as in project deliveries. At the beginning of the year, we have a clear scope, clear targets, but down the road, we face a lot of challenges where we face many dependencies. We need to constantly go around the dependencies and change things back and forth.

We have a lot of experience in the development, on the ERP, and so forth. We have seen that investing in a tool like Camunda is valuable, especially because it's an open-source product. When you do the customization, you'll be enriching and increasing the automation possibility of the product. So, the value is always increasing.

The best feature is the automation.

Camunda supports microservices and you can do multiple things. The most important thing is that you can reuse components that you have within the product. For example, let's say that I developed a workflow for a quality review; that is a workflow that can be reused in any new process. I can just ship it, plug-and-play, copy it, and reuse all of the features and components that are there. It means that I won't be spending too much time in terms of development to put it in place. To me, that is the most valuable thing about the product.

The only drawback is the time that it takes to have a complete set of workflows implemented on the Camunda platform. This is from drawing the modeling and the workflow up to the production release.

The support definitely has to be improved.

Second, it needs to be more intuitive. As it is now, to develop an automated process in Camunda, you would need to involve a front end developer, backend developer, and sometimes, someone who has experience with modeling. Where in Appian and Pega, you would be able to simply reduce these overheads by creating the process, the flow, and converting it within certain boundaries into the automated process.

The visualization part can definitely be improved. You can see the process moving live, but if you have a complex design where you would like to show the process in a different shape, that takes a lot of customization and a lot of coding effort to put this in place. The visualization needs not a little or a medium amount of work, but rather, it requires a lot of improvement. At the end of the day, we have the process, we have the workflow, we have the event, we have everything. However, what the people see at the end of the day is what they believe. So sometimes we know that we do have a lot of data and a lot of information, but we fail to represent this information in a way that meets or addresses the business requirements. Better visualization capabilities would help in this regard.

I have been working with Camunda BPM for almost two years.

I would say that it is stable, at least up to a certain extent. Whenever there is an update to the product available, we go ahead and update it to the latest.

This is a scalable platform. We have about 600 users and about 20 superusers. The superusers are developers, admins, and process engineers. They are a mix of process, business support, mobile app developers, and so forth.

Support is an area that is in need of improvement.

First, they don't have a strong knowledge center. If there is a challenge or there is an issue and you would like to look around, it's not straightforward. Their knowledge center does not address most of the challenges that a person who goes through the cycle from scratch. In building the process and building the products and building the workflow, a person will go through a painful process if they don't have enough experience.

When I say enough experience, I mean a minimum of 16 to 18 months. If someone doesn't have this experience on Camunda, it will be difficult and they will suffer to get things up to speed. The learning curve is too high, so they can do more if they enrich their knowledge center.

The second problem is that the support services from Camunda are not straightforward. When we communicate with them, they have to evaluate you. Sometimes they charge you per workflow, but there is no standard model. It is difficult for us because we have an agreement with the client that at the beginning of that project, we put in our estimation as to the required resources in terms of the infrastructure resources, and in terms of logistic resources, and support. With Camunda, because of the undefined or non-standard costing, that becomes a challenge.

So sometimes we go to a client and we see that the support costs will be much higher than the benefit of the digitalization. That's an example where we decide to do only the modeling for that client using Camunda and the classic workflow development will take place. This is the case, especially for small and medium businesses. For enterprise clients, definitely, we always go with full-fledged support.

I have limited experience with Appian and Pega BPM, but my most in-depth experience is with Camunda BPM. We did a pilot project with Appian for one or two months and we did one with Pega for about one month.

During our evaluation, we have seen that there are pros and cons to all of them.

We also used K2 as one of the platforms, as well as Microsoft BPM. The Microsoft product was a combination between Dynamics and SharePoint and so forth, it was really rigid. Similarly, K2 has a lot of limitations.

This is important because once we get the business requirements, we adapt to the system. We don't force the business to change, especially in this region. We are in the Middle East, Gulf area, and working with the government sector means that they have their own standards that we need to comply with. They have their own procedures where the tools, the IT, and the process have to be adjusted to meet their requirements. For example, consider a supply chain and the procurement process. This is different from one organization to another.

This is the main thing that holds us back from investing in a system like Pega. Pega, to a certain extent, is good. It has most of the capabilities. It also gives you the room to customize to the extent that you feel fit. However, the cost is too high. When we talk about the licensing costs and the customization costs, it's extremely expensive and out of reach.

The initial setup was not straightforward. The complex part was to load or update the backlogged events. So if I have a process, which is already past the flow to a certain stage, after the implementation, if I did not start from scratch, you would need to make the data or the workflow that you have current with the process. Making it current with the live process monitoring is a nightmare. It takes a lot of development effort, a lot of data validation, and a lot of workarounds to bring this up to speed.

I have not seen that there is too much support in being able to bring in existing services. For example, if someone has an existing process, an existing instance with existing data, which is not linked, there is no explanation of what the best approach is and how to load and how to bring this into the new process and make it current, covering the backlog.

This is especially true if the backlog is something that would be crucial for some of the processes that are down-line. For example, in the case where you have a successor process where it depends on the predecessor too much in terms of the decision, and also in terms of that project. Normally, we deal with delivery on projects, so we look at the delivery and the forecast and the delays. So to see the project delays, sometimes we need to go back in time to see whether the delay was in the first stage or on the second stage or on the third stage. Based on this analysis, we always create our baseline by the end of the year and reiterate on our scopes at the beginning of the year.

We have an in-house team of two resources that maintain the product.

The cost of this solution is better than some competing products.

My advice for anybody who is considering Camunda BPM is that they implementing a PoC first.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We use Camunda Platform for automating networking business processes.

The most valuable feature of Camunda Platform is its Microservices architecture, which is easily integrable with APIs.

Camunda Platform's customer support could be improved because their response is quite slow.

I have been using Camunda Platform for approximately one year.

Camunda Platform is a stable solution. However, we recently lost a lot of data because the solution's database was down.

I rate Camunda Platform a seven to eight out of ten for stability.

The solution's initial setup is quite straightforward. I rate Camunda Platform a six or seven out of ten for the ease of its initial setup.

Camunda Platform's deployment was done in a day.

Compared to other software, Camunda Platform is quite cost-effective.

Overall, I rate Camunda Platform a seven or eight out of ten.

We are using the product as an OAM that we have included in our software product. We are offering a private cloud solution and we sell it and deploy it to our customers. 

We are using it to create a low-code solution for strategic planning and performance management in order to automate the management processes such as planning, performance management, governance processes, and business process management as a whole.

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.

The stability of the solution is quite good.

Technical support is good for getting alerts about bugs.

The form builder that will be utilized in the system and the data monitor both need improvement at this time. I want to exchange the data between the activity and UI basis. Currently, they are using a JSON file, which needs to be improved. We need something that can be used as a user interface and the user can make the data binding and exchange data between the activities.

This is what we did ourselves. We had the engine itself and we created a data monitor and formed it on top of it. This is what is missing in the system.

The initial setup can be complex for business users.

There occasionally be some bugs in the solution. 

The solution needs to offer more languages such as Chinese, Arabic, Hebrew, et cetera.

The system is stable. This is why we selected it. Based on other products, we've found the most appropriate results coming out from the Camunda BPM engine. It's very good.

There are occasionally a few bugs, however, we are quite capable of dealing with them.

Since we are using Camunda as a core solution, a core engine of our system, we are going to continue using it. I'm not willing to change it down the line. There's no plan for us to change it and we are not thinking about changing it. It has all functionalities and we are using about 50% of the engine itself in terms of its capability. We will continue to invest in utilizing all Camunda functionalities in the BPM engine.

In terms of technical support, we are using basic technical support as we are a technical organization. We are a software house. Our team is professional and they have experience in Java and private cloud technology. They are able to fix any issue. 

That said, there are certain bugs in Camunda. They are publishing information about them from time to time. We study the tool very carefully. Support from Camunda doesn't mean too much to us actually, as, in our organization, we have about 380 employees, and the majority of them are Java developers. We take the basic support to track the bugs only.

Positive

I also have some experience using Visio as business process management and ARIS as well as Bizagi.

We are partners of Software AG webMethods as an automation tool. We are using Mendix and OutSystems as a low-code solution. ARIS, webMethods, Mendix, and OutSystems are what we mainly use. 

You cannot compare Camunda with ARIS since ARIS is only for our documentation, business process documentation. You cannot compare it with Camunda. It is a totally different scope. However, in comparison between Mendix, OutSystems, and webMethods, they are very expensive tools and ultimately provide the same functionality, yet they are not using a pure BPMN XML. Maybe transferring the workflow between those systems doesn't work. That said, the consistency between, for example, Bonitasoft and Camunda and Bizagi is a matter of import and export. Between other systems such as webMethods and OutSystems and Mendix, for example, in webMethods, they are only still using an enhanced BPM engine mainly, meaning that they are not using the pure or the standard BPM notation. The same applies to Mendix and OutSystems.

The initial setup, for business users, is complex. If you compare it with cloud systems and Mendix, it is complicated. It has a very strong and very rigid back-end BPM engine and it's more trustworthy if XML files have been generated from Camunda. The quality of the XML file being generated from Camunda, the XML files of BPMN, is more trustworthy than other systems. That's why we selected it. This is the main reason that we selected it.

With the Camunda installer, the deployment of just the solution is pretty fast.

However, the automation process with the current functionality, meaning with the missing functionality of data monitor and data binding and with the lack of proper UI representation, it took us a year to develop those components to have a low-code solution on top of it.

Now, with our low-code solution on top, it will take us one to two days to have a visible process automated.

We are an integrator and we are consultants in business process management, and we are developing a tool on top of it. Therefore, we help our clients to implement. However, when we originally installed Camunda, we handled the process ourselves. The way we do things now, we try to make it easier for clients.

We are using a developer license. I can't speak to exactly how much we are paying, or exactly what license type that we are using. I'm not the technical lead or the solution delivery team. Therefore, I can't answer this question.

We did a lot of POCs on available products in the market, such as Bonitasoft, Camunda, Bizagi, so on. However, based on that POCs, we found that the best way to go forward in our solution in terms of the functionality and the accuracy of the XML files. If they could be generated by Camunda it can be more useful for us to adopt in our solution.

We are users of the solution.

We are the latest version due to the fact that we are developing our own product based on Camunda. We are developing a solution based on Camunda. We are a heavy user of Camunda.

Camunda is not so popular in the market due to the UI (meaning the form builder, the way of developing the forms which would be attached to the process), and the data monitor (how to exchange the data between the activities).

A company would need to create an integration framework between Camunda and other systems. If they sold their offering with the UI and data monitor it would be the biggest automation tool ever.

For us, with our experience with using the tool, you need a good developer to be able to use the system effectively. Other than that there are no issues. For an organization that wants to adopt Camunda, they need to have the proper resources, and the proper training to use the system. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. There's a bug inside the BPMN monitor that knocks a few points off the rating. If the system is not saved, it will crash.