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

BIC Platform vs Camunda comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 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

BIC Platform
Ranking in Business Process Design
18th
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
20th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Camunda
Ranking in Business Process Design
1st
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
78
Ranking in other categories
Process Automation (1st), Business Orchestration and Automation Technologies (3rd), AI Software Development (2nd), AI Customer Support (8th), AI IT Support (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Business Process Design category, the mindshare of BIC Platform is 1.8%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Camunda is 9.3%, down from 12.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Design Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Camunda9.3%
BIC Platform1.8%
Other88.9%
Business Process Design
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2328264 - PeerSpot reviewer
Digitalization PM at a manufacturing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Platform for documenting and modifying our processes
The tool was used for digital transformation. Our company operates in the automotive industry and needs a transition to digitalization. We utilize the BIC Platform for documenting and modifying our processes, as well as incorporating various elements such as KPIs. It serves as a fundamental tool for numerous aspects of our operations.
CristianoGomes - PeerSpot reviewer
Owner at a tech services company with 1-10 employees
Supports long-running asynchronous processes effectively but has not evolved much in recent years
I think Camunda is focusing too much on the SaaS offering right now and not much on improving and developing the product itself. I did not see any innovations on that aspect, especially for the open-source version. I was making some tests recently and the tool seemed pretty much the same as it was three or four years ago. Since they made the move to cloud deployment in a more SaaS-oriented way, they do not invest too much in the community version. To be honest, it did not change much from the Activiti initial version. Activiti was pretty much what Camunda is today. They invested a lot on Zeebe and made it the engine for their SaaS cloud version. Camunda itself, the embedded engine, did not evolve too much. They could invest more on that.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The product is easy to use."
"While this is a new product it has a mature feel from being built by a company with many years in the business."
"The central dictionary is a valuable feature."
"This is low-cost and very user friendly. A variety of models are available depending on the needs of the customer."
"Camunda's most valuable feature is its ability to integrate with different products."
"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."
"EC2 makes scaling horizontally incredibly easy, especially when working under the ECS service."
"The graphical interface is very beneficial."
"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."
"The best feature is the automation."
"The product is stable."
"The architecture is good because it's a headless workflow. I can create my own frontend, and it's fully API-based."
 

Cons

"As the product is very new, some minor features are still missing, but everything is there to handle day-to-day process modeling."
"The solution could improve its connectivity to other systems."
"The product needs improvement regarding the confidentiality of the domain information for the key administrator."
"There's an issue with the current manual that they're working on."
"The product must provide more videos and training materials."
"Community support is basically what I'm looking for. Other than that, it is okay for now."
"While it's very scalable, it would be great if auto-scaling capabilities were added to it... one area that really could help out would be to have dynamic resizing of the cluster. Right now, you have to do capacity planning."
"The solution could use some enhancements like adding connectors, improving forms and having a mobile app, but everything is an enhancement rather than a flaw."
"Customization and tech stack could be up-to-date."
"It has a Postgres database at the backend, and it is very difficult to scale if you increase the number of processes running. We did hit some barriers. We were able to overcome them, but it was a problem. Camunda has another product called Camunda Cloud, which supposedly doesn't have the same scalability problems, but we are not using Camunda Cloud because the set of features is smaller than Camunda On-Premises. So, its scalability can be improved. Because it has a single database, it is more difficult to scale if you have a huge success."
"We have to wait to see if Bonita provided us with some features that Camunda does not or if we experience any stability issues."
"Camunda could be improved by making it easier to modify a process. You can program it to follow a process, but it is difficult to modify the process when the application is in use. It could also be improved by making it easier to use the visual platform without needing to be informed on that. Sometimes, we programmers haven't used it in the past, and it's a bit difficult to learn it."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Scalability-wise, it is an expensive product."
"Pricing will differ between enterprises based on needs such as customization, but the company uses a standardized algorithm for determining this."
"It is good for a startup. When we started, its price was fair, but the way we are using it to orchestrate microservices makes it expensive. When you are growing as a company, you would have more microservices, and you would have more users. There is an exponential effect when you are growing in terms of the number of conditions, processes, and users because they bill you per process. So, the price was increasing very quickly for us, and it was very difficult."
"In Africa, the cost of deployment is an important factor to consider since it adds to the overall cost. This might be the only drawback to using it."
"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."
"The product is expensive for a small or medium-sized company."
"We are using the paid edition because there is no separate support and service license yet. We are yet to find a suitable licensing model for Camunda because we only use the engine, and we have implemented our solution around Camunda Cloud. So, we are mainly interested in the support and service, and that's what we mainly use in the paid edition."
"The evaluation of my customers on pricing is that it is reasonable."
"Its price is decent. Everything is included in the license. The Community version is also good to start with. We are using the Community version."
"It is less cost-prohibitive than other solutions on the market. This solution was in our price range."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Design solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
12%
Educational Organization
9%
Retailer
8%
Energy/Utilities Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
26%
Computer Software Company
12%
Insurance Company
6%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business43
Midsize Enterprise15
Large Enterprise29
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about BIC Platform ?
The central dictionary is a valuable feature.
What needs improvement with BIC Platform ?
The solution could improve its connectivity to other systems. For instance, I need new connections to KPIs. KPIs are linked to processes, I can't access the dictionary of processes to make KPIs.
What is your primary use case for BIC Platform ?
We use the solution for drawing the processes.
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...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

BIC Cloud BPM, BIC Platform
Camunda BPM
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Daimler AG Siemens AG RWE Bundesministerium des Innern Uniklinikum Köln Vattenfall Ziemann Dermapharm AG Postbank LBBW EDEKA
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
Find out what your peers are saying about BIC Platform vs. Camunda and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.