We performed a comparison between Camunda and ProcessMaker 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."For an internal project, this is a solution that you can install and have up and running quite quickly."
"The BPMN diagram is valuable. For our use case of transferring money from one account to another, the connections have to be done in the traditional financial ways. There are a lot of unexpected errors and a lot of instability with this kind of system, and we are using Camunda in order to have clear flows. With BPMN, I can show a flow to my business partner, and the business team can easily understand what's going on. The technical team can understand what the implementation is, and we can model different errors and the process for recovering from these errors."
"The product is stable."
"Using the BPMN helps us to have a common shared communication language when discussing processes."
"Easy to use and easy to integrate into the products and applications we provide for our customers."
"It has an open BPM"
"Provides an easy way to integrate with the architectural environment."
"I've found the active community most valuable but it also provides you with a lot of other features."
"What I like most is the seamlessness of the workflow capabilities."
"Its performance, stability, and security are fine."
"Customization and tech stack could be up-to-date."
"There should be a multi-tenant solution for the platform where it supports multiple organizations on one platform instead of having to spin up multiple clusters for each organization. There should be an easy way to integrate different departments into one platform without having to operate multiple platforms. The operations should be easier with the enterprise solution. It should not create more overhead for the operations people."
"Process interfaces between diagrams could be improved."
"It would be helpful to have more readily available use cases on the internet. Camunda's documentation feels less comprehensive."
"There are a few things that I'm missing. For instance, the user interface creator, which I know other systems have, like Aurea or Lombardi, which are IBM solutions. The interface creator, including the data model creator or some module which would allow the users who are not programmers or business consultants and who are not technically skilled in database and Java programming, to create data models and user interfaces."
"The product's initial setup phase is difficult for beginners."
"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."
"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."
"Its interface should be a bit more user-friendly."
Earn 20 points
Camunda is ranked 1st in Business Process Management (BPM) with 69 reviews while ProcessMaker is ranked 37th in Business Process Management (BPM). Camunda is rated 8.2, while ProcessMaker is rated 7.6. 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 ProcessMaker writes "Easy to learn, automates our manual processes to make things easier, and saves us time and money". Camunda is most compared with Apache Airflow, Bizagi, Pega BPM, IBM BPM and Appian, whereas ProcessMaker is most compared with Apache Airflow, Bonita and Appian. See our Camunda vs. ProcessMaker 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.