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

Camunda vs Hyland OnBase comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 9, 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

Camunda
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (1st), Process Automation (1st)
Hyland OnBase
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
19th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Content Management (5th), Low-Code Development Platforms (14th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Business Process Management (BPM) category, the mindshare of Camunda is 20.9%, down from 21.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Hyland OnBase is 0.4%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Management (BPM)
 

Featured Reviews

FABIO NAGAO - PeerSpot reviewer
Reduces costs with hardware abstraction and simplifies scaling
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.
Phemy Lekalakala - PeerSpot reviewer
Stable content and workflow management solution with a valuable retention module
We use this solution for record management and digitization of records. We also use it for workflows and to build online forms The retention module is one of the most valuable features. Whatever we scan onto the system can be identified and we are notified when the records are due to be disposed.…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Camunda Platform is better than IBM BPM, and Azure. It is more elaborate."
"I think that the positives of Camunda Platform are that our customers can start with the free version. I think it is the most important."
"The Camunda BPMN Platform is very flexible and gives several options to deploy and scale it."
"It is quite easy to build a simple process without any knowledge of programming."
"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."
"It's user friendly, much better than most tools I have seen."
"Easy to use and easy to integrate into the products and applications we provide for our customers."
"I've found the active community most valuable but it also provides you with a lot of other features."
"It provided data security features, allowing restrictions on sensitive documents, such as who could view or modify them."
"The solution is very developed and we are not taking full advantage of its functionalities."
"Hyland OnBase is valued for its security, especially for those in the finance domain who require data confidentiality."
"Integrating Hyland OnBase with our systems enabled us to automate document designs and templates, which was extremely helpful in the finance and banking industry."
"Its most valuable aspect is its flexibility"
"The solution's most valuable features are integration and flexibility."
"The product's initial setup phase is not difficult."
"The retention module is one of the most valuable features. Whatever we scan onto the system can be identified and we are notified when the records are due to be disposed."
 

Cons

"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 would like to see the forms engine available in the open-source version of this solution."
"The initial set up could be simplified, it's complex."
"The deployment model could be improved for easier implementation."
"If they could build some scripts or some configuration to get it up and running in a Docker environment, that would be good. I didn't find anything when on Docker, however, maybe they have something and I didn't see it yet."
"We're trying to put the people from the business to do it. We are using APIs, and we have open APIs to define our APIs and the request-response that each call requires and sends. So, to base the mapping on that, there was nothing to help. I know that with some tools, such as Oracle tools, you can see the input and expected output. With drag and drop, you can take one property from the left and drag it to the right, and it does all the mapping itself, but that's not the case with Camunda. So, for me, this is something that can be improved."
"The business model could be easier to understand."
"I think that Camunda can try to do better when it comes to solving the complexities of all the products in its software stack."
"We are struggling with duplicates and would like to have OCR functionality when using this solution."
"The dashboards do have some room for improvement as compared to the other vendors which are there in the market."
"Software malfunctioning usually occurs when we receive documents from external sources."
"The look and feel could be better. The integration with the user could be better. It could also be more user-friendly."
"I find OnBase's monolithic architecture to be expensive, and adopting microservices could be beneficial."
"The solution’s initial setup is a little difficult."
"We found the size of images to be a restriction, though this may have been due to the API used rather than the Hyland application."
"For user experience, they would have to do more with the interface. It is not easy to work with and is a little messy. It is getting better, but it is not yet good enough. Other products are comparatively doing better in terms of the user interface. I have been hearing about Box, which is very easy to use and learn for the users. OnBase has to work on this aspect. It should have BPM capabilities. We compete with tools that provide the BPM feature and support those standards. They can do better in terms of the pricing model. It is a really expensive tool in Latin America. They should have different prices for different regions."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I use the open-source free version."
"We pay for the license of this solution annually."
"Camunda Platform is an open-source product."
"Licensing costs are anywhere from $80,000 to $100,000 USD per year."
"The license is quite expensive, which is why we went with the community version."
"Camunda has a free service as well as a commercial service. We are using the free service."
"Generally, the price could be better, as well as the licensing fees."
"Camunda's pricing is good."
"The tool's price is high."
"They can do better in terms of the pricing model. It is a really expensive tool in Latin America. They should have different prices for different regions."
"The solution costs around $6,000 per month."
"OnBase is reasonably priced."
"There are a number of different types of licenses. There are concurrent licenses, individual licenses and imaging licenses."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Management (BPM) solutions are best for your needs.
851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
27%
Computer Software Company
14%
Government
6%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Government
14%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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...
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...
What do you like most about Hyland OnBase?
The solution is very developed and we are not taking full advantage of its functionalities.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Hyland OnBase?
I find pricing to be on the higher side due to its monolithic architecture. I would rate it six out of ten. Transitioning to microservices, allowing users to pay for only what they use, could reduc...
What needs improvement with Hyland OnBase?
I believe the reporting features need improvement, as other competitors in the market provide better analytics. Hyland is working on a new platform (HXP) to integrate features from all products, ad...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Camunda BPM
OnBase
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

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
Honda France Industries, Hill County Texas, Hylant Group, ING Lease France, State of South Carolina, Syracuse University, Swindon College, Rhode Island Department of Human Services, Rochester Institute of Technology, Moen, Odense University Hospital
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda vs. Hyland OnBase and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.