Camunda Reviews

We are a bank and use this solution for process modeling, organizing, and process architecture like line of business, and to be able to make process interfaces between each diagram. Activities include client enrollment, or a client account opening with a process for loan granting, which can't be done in Modeler. We are customers of Camunda and I'm a process analyst. 

The most valuable features are the ease of use and the ability to streamline a process model on a BPM diagram.

Process interfaces between diagrams could be improved. I'd like to see process interfaces and structure in order to make process architecture. Not only to lift diagrams, but to make new diagrams and new data. You can make new diagram and new data but if the client wants to open a current account, then it must be a process interface. It would also be helpful if they would publish processes in a format that can be easily viewable and understandable. The main area would be in publishing because we want to have all the processes published on our intranet. 

I've been using this solution for six months. 

The stability is fine although we did have some initial problems with it. 

The solution is quite scalable and functional. We have seven to 10 users doing process modelling. They're focused on archiving processes.  

Technical support is fine, although a little slow. 

The initial setup was very easy, I did it myself. 

As a process analyst, I'm into IT development, so my advice is not to make processes highly detailed. The value added here is the freeware version that can give you the best tool to get the job done as a process analyst. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We use an open-source version of this product. In some cases we install on-premises, in some cases, we install on Dockers. How we install the product depends on the use cases and the needs of the projects that we engage in.  

One client may be in logistics. Another client may be involved with internal communication. Another one is in retail. Some will be in business project management. We have to treat each of these to fit their unique needs.  

I like the product since we are a Java-oriented company. Our solutions can be compact with Java. We found it quite useful because we can merge microservices together. It is a different kind of architecture but it is a flexible product that we can use to go live with solutions quickly.  

From my point of view, there is a lot that has room for improvement. But one option that they should focus on most is improving the basic parts of the BPM tools. One example is that they should offer some additional options in terms of employing connectors. We implemented most of our solutions in Java through delegation. We could have done a better job of that with connectors. So connectors are one of the cases where they might improve.  

Another point that I am thinking of that I can not do by myself is to improve the forms. Right now the forms are fairly simple. It would be nice to implement some kind of wizard, or advanced form, and be able to fill in data dynamically.  

A possible add-on is to have a mobile app. Specifically, it would be a tool used to prepare forms dynamically and to preview business projects. If you know what you need to do, you can actually do a lot with a product like that.  

From a security point of view, I think that some features can be added or enhanced. I see a lot of opportunities for interesting stuff that can be implemented like installation identity or places where token authorization can be used. More security measures can be added in order to offer options to protect the front line.  

One final feature that would be nice is the opportunity to operate an active database. I do not think that will happen soon. It is okay because we have very powerful database options right now.  

We have been using this solution for about one year.  

The stability of the product is quite good. You need to have the knowhow to work with it to optimize for best performance with the database and CPU and stuff. But it is a stable and reliable product.  

It is a scalable product. We do not have much on the cloud right now. It is less than 5 nodes. But we could expand that if we needed to.  

As I understand more of the benefits of using the product, I have more plans to increase usage. With any new customer that has a proper use case, Camunda will be my first choice. Even if it is just for the fact that we know we can deploy fast. We can start with a single instance and after that, we can scale without hesitating too much in the planning stages. It is very comfortable for the customer to see things happen quickly. From our experience, most new customers prefer to start small. Better to start fast and get them going and to build them a little at a time to more automated projects than to wait around with nothing seeming to happen.  

I have been around 10 years or more in this industry as a solution architect. With this product, we have the flexibility and speed to serve customers quickly and that is important.  

As for technical support, let's say we do not need it. We can cover any issues by ourselves with our team. We do not have any issues. If we do have an issue, we will compensate for it using Java.  

I prefer not to mention the other product by name because it seems like I would be saying it was not good enough and had to move on, but we did use a product as a solution before Camunda. Every product has its benefit in terms of what they deliver and we just decided that Camuda BPM fit our needs better than the other solution.  

For example, if we wanted to incorporate a solution in a situation where a client was using the Oracle family of products already, we might use Oracle SOA or Oracle OSB to stay within the family of products. Those choices would be a perfect fit.  

On the other hand, if your stack is Spring Boots and Java and open source, Camunda fits well. If you are stuck in an enterprise using Red Hat, there is Bonita and other Red Hat BPMs that may work best for you.  

What you use depends on a lot of things. It could change because of the recommendations of team members, it might depend on the current environment, it could be influenced by whether the company is new and needs to grow fast or if it is an established company with a predictable trajectory. At the end of the day what you use depends on the choice you make for what best fits your circumstance.  

The setup was straightforward. We need to have Java, and that is it. My team does the work on the deployments so I don't know exactly how long it takes anymore. But it is a simple concept that the more complicated the client's needs and use cases are, the longer it will take.  

We do deployments with just two people: one senior and one junior tech. But it depends on the complexity of the workflow. Sometimes we might bring an extra tech if the workflow is complex.  

Of course, we do not use an integrator, reseller, or consultant for the deployment because we are in that role. We know how to build it and we know how to run this kind of project. In the beginning, we did make a lot of mistakes, but at the end of the day, it works. Now when we have a new customer, we know what to do.  

We are using the open-source version so it is without cost.  

My advice about Camunda is I recommend this product when it fits your needs. It is that simple.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as a nine because it fits my demands. Of course, there is always room for improvement in the interface, or performance, and stuff like that.  

I hope that people will work on Camunda and within the next releases we will have more connectors, we will have a much more powerful interface, and maybe we can have a mobile app as well.  

Our primary use case for Camunda is as a process orchestration layer to help prioritize tasks for users as they were designing downstream systems. Camunda is a way to push the rules to the downstream systems. We are partly a reseller, but we also implement and we are the systems integrator. I'm the vice president and account CCO of our company. 

One valuable feature of Camunda is that it's an open BPM, so it was easier for users and developers to work together to define the rules and define the process, given their BPM and standard architecture. This also allowed us to expose the rules and the business process itself into a standard model, which wasn't possible with other tools and softwares we've used in the past. Finally, the engine itself is lightweight so it was easier for us to handle deployments and in production it didn't have a great demand of the infrastructure.

I think there is room for improvement along with the process. Camunda doesn't have a strong forms designer. While that is an advantage in one scenario in that we were able to bring a third party UI, it was lacking in forms visualization and it would be good to have some kind of a strong forms designer that allows development along with the process.

More often, we are seeing BPM used in conjunction with other automation technologies like RPA and AI. If Camunda were to be placed as a central BPM, it would need a better integration mechanism.

I've been using this solution for two years. 

I would rate this solution a seven out of 10. 

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.

The most valuable features are the management of internal processes, the ability to execute from design and the model for internal processes, the ability to make processes visible, and the ability to have information about the current state of each instance.

I've been using this solution for over five years.

This is a stable product - it works and doesn't disturb me or the IT director.

I previously used Activiti, but it had no well-developed tools to monitor administration or develop new processes.

Our initial setup was quite complex and took around six months due to some bureaucratic issues. However, I think that it could be faster for organizations without such issues.

This isn't a very expensive solution, and it's cheaper than its competitors in terms of licensing and resources.

Functional agility is the main reason we use this platform. I would rate this solution as nine out of ten.

We are using the Camunda Platform to build data models.

The solution is good for data models.

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.

I rate Camunda Platform for approximately two years.

We have many people in my organization using this solution.

I have not contacted support, we use our internal IT team for support.

I have used other solutions previously, such as Signavio.

We have an annual subscription to this solution.

I would not recommend this solution because I did not have a good experience.

I rate Camunda Platform a five out of ten.

Our company uses this product for the automation of core banking processes. I'm an enterprise architect and team manager and we are partners with Camunda.

We are system integrators, and the value of Camunda for us is that it's easy to integrate into the products and applications we provide for our customers. The product is based on BPMN and is closely integrated with that standard. It's not complicated and generally easy to use, particularly for students and junior developers who come to learn from us as part of their studies.

It would be helpful if the solution had additional out-of-the-box activities.

I've been using this solution for about a year. 

The product is stable.

The product is scalable. 

We use the Camunda community if we have any problems. We haven't needed to engage directly with any level of support from Camunda. The company arranged some learning sessions before we started using the solution and we already had a lot of experience with other platforms. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. 

We're using the open-source version of the solution. 

We evaluated Activiti as a possible alternative to Camunda but we decided to go with Camunda. 

If you're considering an open-source tool, I would recommend Camunda and rate it eight out of 10.

We primarily use the solution for our clients. 

The flexibility is great. 

I appreciate the compact and clear source code.

We have faced problems with the performance.

Camunda has two options: the Camunda main platform and Camunda Cloud. Right now we are trying to solve problems with the Camunda Cloud and there are significant problems with performance. We communicated this with the Camunda team. We're a member of the Camunda community and we try to solve those problems with them.

Community support is lacking and you need to pay for enterprise support.

I'd like to have the ability to buy into the data model. There are no data models in Camunda and we need information about variables and process instances. In other BPMs or other big BPM platforms, for example, IBM, there is that feature.

I've been using the solution for a few years at this point.

We've had some issues with the performance of the product, particularly on the cloud deployment. 

We have about 100 people using the solution at this time. 

We only have developers that use it. We are a development company.

We didn't buy Camunda enterprise support. We only use community support and we don't have, to be honest, enough community support. It's not very helpful. We have many unanswered questions.

We've worked with many different solutions, including IBM, BPM, Oracle, SAP, and VPN platforms, among others.

I like Camunda due to the fact that I can embed it into our infrastructure applications. The library, not the whole sales server.

We use the community version, which is free. I'm not sure of enterprise pricing.

You do need to pay for the enterprise level to get support. Otherwise, you have access to community support, and it is lacking. 

We are end-users of the solution. 

I'd advise potential new users to learn BPM notation. It is an issue due to the fact that we have to propagate BPM notation to our customers as a lot of customers don't know what is it and how to use and why BPM is a good solution.

Currently, this is the best solution compared to global JBPM and other open-source BPM platforms.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.