No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Bonita vs Red Hat Polymita Business Suite comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Bonita
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
28th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
27
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (17th), Process Automation (28th)
Red Hat Polymita Business S...
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
53rd
Average Rating
10.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Business Process Management (BPM) category, the mindshare of Bonita is 1.7%, down from 3.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Polymita Business Suite is 0.6%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Management (BPM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Bonita1.7%
Red Hat Polymita Business Suite0.6%
Other97.7%
Business Process Management (BPM)
 

Featured Reviews

Paparao Nadipineni - PeerSpot reviewer
Architect at Evoke
A simple and lightweight college course automation system with third-party integrations
The initial setup is straightforward and can be completed with the environment within an hour. First, take the latest from the git repository and check the git code to the monitor studio and a bar file, a deployable Bonita archive file. Then, take that process to the Bonita server, running at runtime on another server. Finally, deploy and enable it by selecting the proper organization.
LY
Partner at a tech services company with 1-10 employees
Gives you the ability to design the screens outside the software and connect them as a component with the BPM engine
On the improvement part, I think the documentation for the tool, the official documentation, is not as strong as in other tools. You have lot of community. That is good. But sometimes you need - when you are working on a big client or a critical process - to be certain about certain things. So I think that the documentation for the tool, from the company, could be a little stronger. Also, the size of the team within Latin America. The size of the team that, in each country, knows about BPM - because of the size of Red Hat in comparison with the size of IBM or Oracle - is very little. You have maybe three or four people in the company, in Red Hat Mexico, that know about BPM; and in Peru, maybe one, who also needs to know about five other tools. You have help there, but sometimes you don't need that kind of help. You need to sit down with someone and take a good amount of time and discuss a process to solve a problem. It's a consequence of the size. IBM and Oracle are monsters. They have, say, 100 more employees than Red Hat. That is the problem. But on the other side, the price is good. You could pay four times less, five times less, in an average implementation with Red Hat than with IBM. So there is a trade-off.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We use the tool to validate and give access to the users. It is for access management."
"The Connector implementation is a great addition to an out-of-box solution providing robust features for the developer to build hassle-free integrations."
"It is a great product that is powerful in developing applications."
"One of the most valuable features is you can create without coding, it is a low code platform."
"This product is very easy-to-use and user-friendly."
"Development of forms and flows."
"I find process management and user interface designing the most valuable features."
"With Bonita BPM, you can run the process (as it will in the final stage) immediately after the design stage, giving you 100% control over the quality of your processes and flows."
"The most important benefit is to have a good solution at a good price that enables Red Hat BPM users to develop their own front end in the language and schemes that suit them best."
"The main factor that separates Red Hat software from Oracle, IBM, Pegasystems, is the ability that it gives you to design the screens outside the software and connect it as another component with the BPM engine."
 

Cons

"The interface is advanced and quite good, but it could improve."
"The solution is stable. However, we have experienced a few bugs."
"There is a need for more components in the library and additional customization options for these components."
"The community edition has limited module functionality."
"I have run into a lot of problems because there is not enough documentation."
"The price is good, but I do not like the process instance annual quantity pricing base used today."
"At times Bonita BPM Studio crashes, intermittently."
"So Bonita is easy to use but it seems to be missing some powerful features that competing products have."
"I think the documentation for the tool, the official documentation, is not as strong as in other tools. You have lot of community. That is good. But sometimes you need - when you are working on a big client or a critical process - to be certain about certain things. So I think that the documentation for the tool, from the company, could be a little stronger."
"On the improvement part, I think the documentation for the tool, the official documentation, is not as strong as in other tools."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"You pay an annual fee and can have an unlimited number of processes and users."
"The price is fair for what we are using the solution for."
"The price of the solution is reasonable."
"The product's pricing is acceptable. Pricing is yearly."
"The product is not cheaper, not costlier; it is reasonable. Bonita’s license is very flexible, with options to meet the needs of different customers and clients. Previously, it was less flexible, but now, many different licensing options are available."
"Price to service ratio with Bonita BPM is good."
"I believe this is a very good financial choice."
"The Community Edition comes free of charge."
"Without any discount, you need tools that cost roughly between $80,000 to $100,000. That is less than with IBM. And on top of that you need the consulting. That will be another $200,000. So a quarter to a third of a million dollars is needed to use get started with BPM. So I usually recommend to my clients that they begin with a little project, with the community version. That way they don't spend $200,000 or $300,000, they spend $150,000 and zero on software."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Management (BPM) solutions are best for your needs.
913,924 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Government
8%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise11
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

How does Bonita compare with Camunda Platform?
One of the things we like best about Bonita is that you can create without coding - it is a low-code platform. With Bonita, you can build the entire mechanism using the GUI, it’s that simple. You c...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Bonita BPM
Polymita Business Suite
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

With more than 1000 customers in 75 countries, and its ecosystem of more than 120,000 members, Bonitasoft is the largest provider of open-source Business Process Management, Low-code and Digital Transformation software worldwide.
Bayer, Grupo Televisa, RCBC, Peavey
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Automation Anywhere, IBM and others in Business Process Management (BPM). Updated: September 2026.
913,924 professionals have used our research since 2012.