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

Camunda vs OpenText MBPM comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 15, 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
77
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (2nd), Process Automation (1st)
OpenText MBPM
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
38th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Business Process Management (BPM) category, the mindshare of Camunda is 19.1%, down from 21.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText MBPM 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.
Jaideep MS - PeerSpot reviewer
A solution offering good automation capabilities while needing to improve its support and documentation
I think the solution's support could do a better job. I rate the support somewhere around four and five out of ten. There is a hoard of people that they get in touch with while contacting them. So we've done some work with them in the past. I mean, we've been a support partner for a while. But apart from that, in terms of understanding the issues for a particular technology, I think there is a lack of people at their end. So they don't really have many people with them. And by the time we could get hold of the right person, especially for production issues, it's a little too late.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is very user-friendly compared to IBM BPM. It's much simpler – it's more streamlined. That means even non-technical departments can use it."
"Ease of use and ability to streamline a process model."
"We can easily define and deploy business processes. Camunda provides the tools that allow business people to design business processes. We don't have to have developers for it. It is so easy to use that our business people can go into the tool and model their business processes. We get time to do other things than just designing business processes."
"The number of client implementations and cross-language capabilities to support multiple frameworks is very pluggable compared to Pega. It's also more portable."
"One reason we selected Camunda or Cloud/DB is that it comes with the support of the BPMN notation, which helps to define processes in a standard manner. Another reason was that Camunda Cloud, as the name says, is designed for a new cloud era."
"The architectural part of Camunda for workflow design is highly valuable, especially the Camunda Modeler, which allows quick process design and implementation."
"The solution is useful for small projects."
"The most valuable features are that it's lightweight, can be embedded in existing Java code, and keeps track of the workflow state and the instances that we need."
"Not just the solution's automation capabilities, but we like everything about it since we are more of a system integrator."
 

Cons

"When you search for Camunda BPM resources or books on how to utilize Camunda BPM, it is lacking. When it comes to Alfresco, there are thousands of resources that can help you to utilize within AWS and its Group Services. I would like to see the usage of Camunda BPM on Amazon Web Services be improved."
"Customization and tech stack could be up-to-date."
"Initial setup can be quite complex."
"We have to wait to see if Bonita provided us with some features that Camunda does not or if we experience any stability issues."
"They could provide more documentation regarding the integration of different programming languages."
"I would like to see the forms engine available in the open-source version of this solution."
"Community support is basically what I'm looking for. Other than that, it is okay for now."
"The GUI needs to be improved, with more configuration options."
"The user interface could be better in OpenText MBPM."
"There are shortcomings in the solution's support and documentation part."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Camunda is a cheaply priced product, making it one of its major USPs."
"When compared with the proprietary products, the pricing costs are much less, even though it is an enterprise edition."
"Camunda is much cheaper."
"There were some features that were only available in the paid version."
"Cheaper licensing and resources than competitors"
"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."
"The license is quite expensive, which is why we went with the community version."
"The most attractive feature of the product is that it is open source."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is cost-efficient, and ten is expensive, I rate the pricing somewhere between nine and ten since it is a costly solution."
"There is an annual license to use OpenText MBPM."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Management (BPM) solutions are best for your needs.
865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
26%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
6%
Insurance Company
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
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...
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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Camunda BPM
Metastorm BPM
 

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
Kommunales Rechenzentrum Minden-Ravensburg/Lippe (KRZ), Hawksford Group, Gauteng Provincial Government Department of Economic Development, Deutsche Post DHL, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, London Underground, Great Clips, Fiat, Rompetrol, Gaston Memorial Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Bachmann, Alliance Healthcare
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda vs. OpenText MBPM and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.