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.
"It has created executable requirements and speeds up the SDLC process greatly."
"The solution's most valuable features are the regular periodic and quarterly updates, they are very useful updates. They keep improving the solution more often, and that helps the platform or code always be up to date with the latest features."
"The initial setup was seamless. We didn't run into any hardships at all."
"The initial setup is easy."
"Write to Data Store Entity - Saving data in SQL databases is done easily using entities. Entities (CDTs in Appian terminology) define relationships and target schema tables via XSD files."
"It has good integrations. We were looking for out-of-the-box integration with both on-prem and publicly accessible data sources. We needed integration with the cloud, OData, our REST API feed, and then on-prem passthrough to go to a SQL database or on-prem APIs through Azure local deployment, etc."
"The most valuable features of Appian are the VPN engine, it is fast, lightweight, and easy to set up business rules. Business teams can do it by themselves. That is a very good feature."
"The product's most valuable feature is the low code aspect of development. We can develop an end-to-end VPN solution using a single platform."
"The number of client implementations and cross-language capabilities to support multiple frameworks is very pluggable compared to Pega. It's also more portable."
"One valuable feature of the solution is its flexibility."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share the logic within the rules engine with the business, so you can put it up for everybody to read."
"The product is stable."
"We are documenting all of the processors and VPN. Then we are sharing it with our business users."
"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."
"We can share, discuss, and develop the model together — from a distance. It's really helped us during these times of isolation."
"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."
"It would be useful if they could create an academy or forum in the future to help active users answer questions they have about the solution."
"It is difficult to set up the on-premise version."
"The product’s pricing could be improved from the developers' perspective."
"There are some restrictions with respect to using external components within Appian. So, for example, if we do not have a particular feature available, there's a long cycle of getting approvals and all of that. That does not offer flexibility, which definitely can be improved on."
"One of the areas that Appian is working on is to improve its UI capabilities and give more flexibility to the UI."
"What could be improved is more on the front end perspective, like the user interface and the mobile application aspect."
"The solution could improve robotic process automation."
"I would like to see more complete university tools. For example, with UiPath, I have had a good experience related to a free course in order to provide some users some different levels of knowledge. This extra training helps users not only use the solution but to develop further within the tool."
"Documentation can be improved."
"It lacks some preset features and configurations which would make it more plug-and-play for customers."
"The support offered by the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"As we experienced some difficulties in the beginning, deployment took almost a month."
"The only drawback is the time that it takes to have a complete set of workflows implemented on the Camunda platform."
"I would say that Camunda should actually focus on small cases as well. There's a lot of space out there, for small businesses. If they can, they should cater to them."
"The product's initial setup phase is difficult for beginners."
"An improvement would be to support Angular 2 instead of AngularJS, which is quite old."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 58 reviews while Camunda is ranked 1st in Business Process Management (BPM) with 69 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, OutSystems, ServiceNow, 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.
