We performed a comparison between Camunda and OpenText 360 for SharePoint based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Management (BPM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Using the BPMN helps us to have a common shared communication language when discussing processes."
"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."
"The best feature is the automation."
"Camunda Platform has a very good interface for workflow and business process design."
", Camunda can be a powerful tool to work with when used in an optimized and well-implemented manner."
"Being able to use a Java-based solution makes the product flexible."
"Having knowledge of the BPM and monitoring process has proven to be very beneficial, as I am currently engaged in documenting processes for Clientele."
"The solution is easily compatible with HTML forms and HTML language programming and that is the most significant part."
"It's all now on cloud subscription, so you can use all the features without worrying about making the system updates patches."
"The fact that you can see and create something that fits your business is the most valuable thing in this platform. It is a customizable product, so it fits your needs."
"This solution has good connection and we do not need to migrate everything in order to protect the repository."
"We concentrate on the legal industry, such as legal libraries. It's the most structured solution we have used and implemented for five years."
"In terms of its most valuable features, this solution, in general, will provide all you need and it's very convenient to use. We can share our details to collaborative platforms. We can give access to users. It's pretty flexible."
"OpenText 360's best features are platform independence and its performance when searching large numbers of documents."
"The collaborative environment for long-term archival or record management is great."
"We have manual processes, so the workflow enables us to automate a number of these processes."
"Documentation can be improved."
"The business model could be easier to understand."
"It lacks some preset features and configurations which would make it more plug-and-play for customers."
"The user interface needs some polishing because it is too technical for end-users to use it."
"They have a migration plugin that can be used to migrate from one BPM to another BPM. It is in the beta stage since last year. If they can make it available in the market, it would be great. We are going to have a couple of migration projects for migrating from IBM BPM to Camunda, and this plugin would be useful. I have already discussed this with them two weeks ago and asked them to look into this and add it as a feature. We are expecting this plugin to be available in the next version. This is the only requirement we have at present. They keep on coming up with different features, which is helping us a lot. Its latest release that came out last month was awesome."
"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."
"It is not difficult to change existing processes. The difficulty was in integration, for example, to call an external web API, and in the security capabilities, to use a vault for secrets. That was difficult."
"They could provide more documentation regarding the integration of different programming languages."
"I would like for there to be even more integrations in the next release and I believe that the price could go down a bit."
"They are not going for any add-ons right now. It's the same version we are still using and there is no plan of upgrading and/or creating any add-ons at all."
"An area for improvement would be how the platform handles large volumes of documents. It also doesn't provide a very good, robust backup and restore capacity. In the next release, I would like the search technology to be improved."
"If I have to really create an internal knowledge management portal, if I have to compare SharePoint and WordPress, WordPress is far, far better in regard to the SharePoint option."
"The platform's workflows could be more intuitive and easier to use."
"Integration is an area where the solution lacks."
"Its licensing needs to be simplified. Currently, its licensing is very complex. It contains a number of pieces, and you have to be an expert in reading all the conditions in the license. They should simplify the licensing and make it easier to understand. It would make a customer's life easier."
"The graphical user interface had to be more user-friendly. It's not as intuitive."
Camunda is ranked 1st in Business Process Management (BPM) with 69 reviews while OpenText 360 for SharePoint is ranked 15th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 13 reviews. Camunda is rated 8.2, while OpenText 360 for SharePoint is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Camunda writes "Open-source, easy to define new processes, and easy to transition to new business process definitions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText 360 for SharePoint writes "A great, collaborative environment with scalability for many products". Camunda is most compared with Apache Airflow, Bizagi, Pega BPM, IBM BPM and Appian, whereas OpenText 360 for SharePoint is most compared with Apache Airflow, IBM BPM, Bizagi and Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) Forms. See our Camunda vs. OpenText 360 for SharePoint report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors.
We monitor all Business Process Management (BPM) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
