We performed a comparison between Boomi AtomSphere Flow and Camunda 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."Boomi AtomSphere Flow is very easy to develop and maintain compared to other tools like SAP HANA Cloud Integration or Cloud Platform."
"In the long run, if you have a good team, solution architect, and an architect from Boomi's side, then it is a good tool from an ROI perspective since it can help save money."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its core integration with Boomi AtomSphere because it's extremely easy to tap into any informational system of a company."
"Boomi AtomSphere Flow is integrated through APIs, it exposes the API and any product can call the APIs in the queue. Additionally, it is secure."
"Camunda Platform has a very good interface for workflow and business process design."
"Using the BPMN helps us to have a common shared communication language when discussing processes."
"Its flexibility stands out as the most valuable feature."
"The solution is good for data models."
"The most valuable feature is that, with a visual system, you can try to have a process client before beginning the programming for the application."
"The most valuable feature of Camunda Platform is its Microservices architecture, which is easily integrable with APIs."
"The UI is very user-friendly compared to other products. The native, vanilla UI is very interesting and intuitive to use. It's user-friendly when it comes to modernizing a business process."
"The ease with which I can define workflows is most valuable. The latest updates and flexibility that it provides around a task activity are interesting for me."
"The solution could improve by being more user-friendly. The whole solution is used through an interface and it could always be improved."
"The solution's user interface building needs improvement."
"Its stability could be improved."
"The development effort with Boomi AtomSphere Flow is more when you compare it with other tools, which is a drawback and an area of improvement."
"Documentation can be improved."
"The documentation could use improvement."
"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."
"An improvement would be to support Angular 2 instead of AngularJS, which is quite old."
"Camunda Platform's customer support could be improved because their response is quite slow."
"Lacking in forms visualization."
"I would like to have a feature for audit logging, audit logs and audit log management. And some history of use for the audit logs."
"The product's initial setup phase is difficult for beginners."
Boomi AtomSphere Flow is ranked 23rd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 4 reviews while Camunda is ranked 1st in Business Process Management (BPM) with 71 reviews. Boomi AtomSphere Flow is rated 8.0, while Camunda is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Boomi AtomSphere Flow writes "A competent solution for integrating enterprise-grade software". 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". Boomi AtomSphere Flow is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, Apache Airflow, Pega BPM, Mendix and AWS Step Functions, whereas Camunda is most compared with Apache Airflow, Bizagi, Pega BPM, IBM BPM and Appian. See our Boomi AtomSphere Flow vs. Camunda 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.