We performed a comparison between Camunda and Hyland OnBase 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."The solution is useful for small projects."
"The number of client implementations and cross-language capabilities to support multiple frameworks is very pluggable compared to Pega. It's also more portable."
"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."
"Easy to use and easy to integrate into the products and applications we provide for our customers."
"The speed and execution of DMN was a big selling point for us. It's very good at conducting business processes that are easily modeled and presented in a way that's easy to understand."
"The architecture is good because it's a headless workflow. I can create my own frontend, and it's fully API-based."
"The flexibility characteristic in a BPMS, through BPMN and DMN, is undoubtedly the most interesting feature for our business."
"I like the cloud and its integrability."
"OnBase is a remarkable tool. It is a well-done product. Hyland has a lot of experience in building it and looking for new things for clients in terms of functionalities. It has amazing stability, and it can grow horizontally and vertically. It is built for growth. Their technical support is also quite good and available throughout the year."
"The solution is very developed and we are not taking full advantage of its functionalities."
"We found the setup process to be okay since they do offer a troubleshooting guide."
"The retention module is one of the most valuable features. Whatever we scan onto the system can be identified and we are notified when the records are due to be disposed."
"The most valuable features are that it's very secure and provides audit trails for our documents."
"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."
"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."
"I have faced problems in bringing up the Cockpit in terms of GUI processes. I think that there is room for improvement in those areas."
"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."
"The user interface needs improvement. It should be more tailored to the end-user and offer a better user experience design over the user interface itself."
"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."
"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."
"An area for improvement would be the training - getting our people up to speed on how to use it required more training than we expected due to the complexity of the solution."
"The look and feel could be better. The integration with the user could be better. It could also be more user-friendly."
"For user experience, they would have to do more with the interface. It is not easy to work with and is a little messy. It is getting better, but it is not yet good enough. Other products are comparatively doing better in terms of the user interface. I have been hearing about Box, which is very easy to use and learn for the users. OnBase has to work on this aspect. It should have BPM capabilities. We compete with tools that provide the BPM feature and support those standards. They can do better in terms of the pricing model. It is a really expensive tool in Latin America. They should have different prices for different regions."
"The dashboards do have some room for improvement as compared to the other vendors which are there in the market."
"We need to troubleshoot why our reports didn't get downloaded in a day. There is a workflow feature which powerful but also complicated."
"We are struggling with duplicates and would like to have OCR functionality when using this solution."
Camunda is ranked 1st in Business Process Management (BPM) with 69 reviews while Hyland OnBase is ranked 24th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 8 reviews. Camunda is rated 8.2, while Hyland OnBase is rated 8.0. 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 Hyland OnBase writes "Stable content and workflow management solution with a valuable retention module". Camunda is most compared with Apache Airflow, Bizagi, Pega BPM, IBM BPM and Appian, whereas Hyland OnBase is most compared with Alfresco, SharePoint, OpenText Documentum, OpenText Extended ECM and IBM FileNet. See our Camunda vs. Hyland OnBase 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.
