We performed a comparison between Camunda and MEGA HOPEX based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Design solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We are using the BPMN engine of Camunda; we are not using the user interface. We are using just the engine, the back end of this. For us, it is working quite well."
"I've found the active community most valuable but it also provides you with a lot of other features."
"The flexibility characteristic in a BPMS, through BPMN and DMN, is undoubtedly the most interesting feature for our business."
"I can use any other tools to create services and the UI, and then use them together with the Camunda BPMN engine."
"It is simple to use. The user experience is very good."
"The integration with almost any language, product, and even human tasks, is valuable. It's very seamless to integrate into existing systems. It doesn't require you to rewrite a lot of your existing system. That's where it really stands out."
"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."
"I like everything about the entire BPM that comes with the BPM suite."
"The solution itself was easy to use."
"We use the portfolio management feature heavily."
"The platform is stable."
"The solution is scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it's completely possible to do so."
"The most valuable features of MEGA HOPEX are the seamless VPA module and the good user experience. There are built-in connections that provide integration with other platforms, such as ServiceNow. There is a lot of customization available allowing a lot of freedom. The solution is updated frequently adding new features. For example, the feature GraphQL can be integrated into other solutions, such as ManageEngine for ITSM solutions. You are able to use GraphQL to connect APIs and query the APIs."
"The tool is very simple and intuitive to use."
"An advantage is its accessibility."
"Every module sets up the same information in a unique repository."
"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."
"Lacking in forms visualization."
"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."
"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."
"When trying to design rule tables the solutions graphical user interface could improve, it could be more user friendly."
"It lacks some preset features and configurations which would make it more plug-and-play for customers."
"I would like to see better pricing."
"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."
"Standardization is lacking. The Operational Risk Function will be more effective if it at a default level follows established Basel standards for Loss categorization, Risk Assessments, Risk Event categorization, etc."
"It has a data domain where we load our data objects onto the tool but doesn't provide data governance capabilities such as cleansing or validating data."
"This product is expensive and would be improved by lowering its price."
"The initial setup is a little complex."
"The tool's UI should be more user-friendly."
"Lacking more out of the box integrations."
"The solution lacks additional models compared to other tools."
"We have a very close relationship with MEGA representatives in Mexico, and we ask them why they don't offer impact analysis. For example, we have a server in the center and provide the client a view of what's in the peripheral area, like one cluster, application, process area, and services. We want to offer our clients that level of visibility with HOPEX."
Camunda is ranked 2nd in Business Process Design with 69 reviews while MEGA HOPEX is ranked 8th in Business Process Design with 36 reviews. Camunda is rated 8.2, while MEGA HOPEX is rated 7.8. 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 MEGA HOPEX writes "Easy to use and robust with good features". Camunda is most compared with Apache Airflow, Bizagi, Pega BPM, IBM BPM and Appian, whereas MEGA HOPEX is most compared with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, LeanIX, ARIS BPA, Visio and erwin Data Modeler by Quest. See our Camunda vs. MEGA HOPEX report.
See our list of best Business Process Design vendors.
We monitor all Business Process Design 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.
