We performed a comparison between Appian and Camunda Platform based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Appian has an edge over Camunda Platform in this comparison. It is easier to deploy and has better customer support.
"This is the most complete solution of its kind."
"Technical support has been amazing overall."
"The most valuable features of Appian are workflow management and the ease with which you can build the UI."
"The most valuable feature is business automation."
"The initial setup was seamless. We didn't run into any hardships at all."
"The product has a very good mobile app."
"The initial setup is easy."
"Rapid development with low-code makes it easier to quickly get apps implemented and the time to break-even and ROI is much faster."
"Camunda Platform has a very good interface for workflow and business process design."
"Provides an easy way to integrate with the architectural environment."
"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 graphical interface is very beneficial."
"We have the ability to modify the product if we need to, and that comes in handy whenever we need to add new functionality and features."
"The modeler is useful for creating the flow. The way to access the data through their REST API is also valuable. This is what we're using right now."
"The visibility – the diagrams you create – and then being able to automate based on them are valuable features. It's easy to explain and comprehend, and the integration aspects are valuable."
"The interface and the number of connectors that they provide are the most valuable features. The support here, it's kind of okay. But the main thing is with the number of connectors and the UI, the user interface."
"My only request is that they decrease the license costs."
"The solution could improve robotic process automation."
"The tool itself is pretty good, but the main area that we struggled with was the backend. The frontend development is really good, but the backend modeling can be streamlined a little bit. There are good integrations, but tying them through the data layer and then up into the frontend could be improved a little bit. It does read/write on the data source, and you can configure it to just write or just read, but there is a little bit of work involved."
"The biggest areas of improvement would be in facilitating team development, DevOps, and integration with typical tools used in enterprise development (Jenkins, Subversion, etc.)"
"Architecture of product and scalabiility issues."
"Appian is easy to set up, but JBoss is complex. JBoss is the application server for running Appian."
"The graphical user interface could be easier to use. It should be simplified."
"There are four areas I believe Appian could improve in. The first is a seamless contact center integration. Appian does not have a contact center feature. The second is advanced features in RPA. The third would be chatbot and email bot integration—while Appian comes with chatbot and email bot, it's not as mature as it should be, compared to the competition. The fourth area would be next best action, since there is not much of this sort of feature in Appian. These are all features which competitors' products have, and in a mature manner, whereas Appian lacks on these four areas. I see customers who are moving from Appian to Pega because these features are not in Appian."
"I think it would be important to internationalize the Cockpit and the Admin as well as with the Tasklist."
"The user interface needs some polishing because it is too technical for end-users to use it."
"In terms of features, it meets my needs, but I would like Camunda to have an office in Brazil and provide training in Portuguese. They should provide regional support and training courses in Portuguese."
"Camunda could be improved by making it easier to modify a process. You can program it to follow a process, but it is difficult to modify the process when the application is in use. It could also be improved by making it easier to use the visual platform without needing to be informed on that. Sometimes, we programmers haven't used it in the past, and it's a bit difficult to learn it."
"When trying to design rule tables the solutions graphical user interface could improve, it could be more user friendly."
"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."
"In the future, I would like to see better transactional integrity."
"Initial setup can be quite complex."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 58 reviews while Camunda is ranked 1st in Business Process Management (BPM) with 71 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while Camunda is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Camunda writes "Open-source, easy to define new processes, and easy to transition to new business process definitions". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, ServiceNow, OutSystems, Pega BPM and Mendix, whereas Camunda is most compared with Apache Airflow, Bizagi, Pega BPM, IBM BPM and Bonita. See our Appian vs. Camunda report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors and best Process Automation 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.
