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

Camunda vs ProcessMaker 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

Camunda
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
1st
Ranking in Business Orchestration and Automation Technologies
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
78
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (1st), Process Automation (1st), AI Software Development (2nd), AI Customer Support (61st), AI IT Support (4th)
ProcessMaker
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
37th
Ranking in Business Orchestration and Automation Technologies
29th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Business Process Management (BPM) category, the mindshare of Camunda is 9.2%, down from 21.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ProcessMaker is 0.9%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Management (BPM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Camunda9.2%
ProcessMaker0.9%
Other89.9%
Business Process Management (BPM)
 

Featured Reviews

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.
UchechiSylvanus - PeerSpot reviewer
Team Lead, Process Improvement & RPA at Fidelity Bank Plc
Works well, but its interface should be a bit more user-friendly
We use it for our process flows and levels of approvals, but I am not managing it directly Its performance, stability, and security are fine. Its interface should be a bit more user-friendly. I have been using this solution for close to a year. It is stable. It is easy to scale. We currently…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"The flexibility is great."
"The platform's approach to BPMN modeling is straightforward and versatile, making it easy to adopt and use effectively."
"Camunda serves as an automation library and provides lightweight deployment to the cloud."
"The most valuable feature is the scheduling."
"Camunda Platform is better than IBM BPM, and Azure. It is more elaborate."
"I can use any other tools to create services and the UI, and then use them together with the Camunda BPMN engine."
"Camunda is the best among similar solutions like JBPM and Activiti."
"What I like most is the seamlessness of the workflow capabilities."
"Its performance, stability, and security are fine."
 

Cons

"I would like to see better pricing."
"An improvement would be to support Angular 2 instead of AngularJS, which is quite old."
"In the latest version, there are certain workflow nodes that are missing. Camunda should bring those back, or rather, develop them quickly."
"The deployment model could be improved for easier implementation. More open documentation would be beneficial to understand the deployment process better and facilitate easier setup."
"I would also like a very easy to use form builder."
"In the future, I would like to see better transactional integrity."
"I would like to see the forms engine available in the open-source version of this solution."
"Especially when you use the open-source version, there are issues with performance."
"Its interface should be a bit more user-friendly."
"This solution only supports basic text, but we would like to be able to insert components such as rich text, graphs, charts, pictures, and other objects."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"While the license isn't budget-friendly, careful consideration and calculated planning for a significant number of licenses can make it more cost-effective."
"The license is quite expensive, which is why we went with the community version."
"The price is competitive with products like Bonitasoft and RHPAM (Red Hat Process Automation Manager). We have two versions of Camunda. The first version was open source, without support, but then we got a supported version."
"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."
"We use the open-source version, which can be used at no cost."
"We have an annual subscription to this solution."
"We're using the free version. We used the Enterprise version for some time. If I compare free versus what we paid at that time, the Enterprise version costs a lot. For the additional functionality that we got with the Enterprise version, it was too costly."
"We use the free version."
"We have a yearly license."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Management (BPM) solutions are best for your needs.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
24%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
6%
Insurance Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
13%
Insurance Company
9%
University
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business43
Midsize Enterprise15
Large Enterprise29
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
ProcessMaker Workflow Management & BPM, ProcessMaker 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
Tulsa Community College, Sirius College, Mcredit Vietnam, Oregon City Schools, Lakozy Toyota, HyperCube
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda vs. ProcessMaker and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.