At that time, it was one of the few open-source solutions available in the market. For us, it was easier to go with Camunda. We are a government organization, and we need to go through the request of proposal process to acquire a solution, but we didn't for Camunda because it was open source. 

We quickly liked how it was working. It was a no-brainer at the time. We knew that we wanted a workflow engine, and it was only Camunda that provided the level of flexibility that we were searching for and was open source. That's why we went with Camunda. We didn't find any other interesting providers. Now, I know there are a lot more solutions. So, if we have to start over with a new solution, we will take time to see if there are any other tools that can achieve the same.

We, the employees, had suggested the company authorities opt for Camunda Platform. I was looking into certain facts from Camunda's support team so that I can suggest a good way to help my company design business processes. Our company has to look after customs and domestic taxes, and BPMN in Camunda Platform has been done using the custom function.

My company chose Camunda since it has two parts, one of which is Camunda Rule Engine, while the other one is Camunda BPMN. When it comes to Camunda Rule Engine, Camunda passes a set of rules through the tool itself, a process that doesn't happen in the system but happens externally through validation checks called the Camunda DMN Decision Engine. After a certain period, my company realized that Camunda's main feature lies in what Camunda BPMN provides to its users. After getting a demo of Camunda, my company was impressed with the solution, and we decided to try it.

We evaluated multiple options. We evaluated classical BPM solutions such as Activiti, Bonitasoft, and the Camunda BPM platform. We also looked at jBPM. On the non-BPM side, at the time, we looked at Uber Cadence and Netflix Conductor.

We have evaluated Bonitasoft and RHPAM.

Camunda and other products—like Bonitasoft and RHPAM —have been chosen, strategically, by our enterprise to reduce the gap between developers and analysts, because we talk the same language: BPMN.

We did a little bit of research. We looked at Zeebe, which is their own. We also did research on jBPM, but it didn't have all the features. 

We were trying to solve a problem in our startup, and we just started to look for solutions. We didn't have a broad benchmark. We were looking for something that could work, and Camunda was fit for our needs. We couldn’t find anything that had the stability or robustness that we were looking for. So, we went ahead with Camunda.

We did take a look at some of the options available in the market, solutions that allow you to do process automation, including Cadence/Temporal.

We selected Camunda due to a few important reasons. It's a product that solves a problem that many organizations don't even realize exists in their architecture: visibility. It gives us visibility into the complex processes that are often implemented in software or if some of the tasks are done by humans. Camunda, with its integrations and great tools for reporting, like Optimize, allows us to see where the bottlenecks are in our processes.

It also has companion tools, like Operate, that allow you to visualize the flow of a particular business process. And you can find some really cool statistics about how much of a process is actually done or where it is blocked. Those are some of the really important features that any workflow orchestration or engine should have, and Camunda supports them pretty well.

I have used IBM BPM and Newgen in the past. We are still using IBM BPM alongside Camunda.

We evaluated Appian for my current job but it's less beneficial if your aim is to have your customers at the front end. We took the middle road when we went with Camunda and the flexibility it offers is a big advantage for us. Appian and IBM don't provide a community version and for the enterprise version, Camunda is an affordable solution. 

My company chose Camunda since we wanted a tool for process modeling with BPMN so that we could automate some of our processes.

More than two years ago, we did a lot of work evaluating Camunda and other products. The two other solutions that we looked at were Pega and Appian.

Pega and Appian were much larger than Camunda, so they didn't meet the criteria of being lightweight. They had a lot of features, which is something that we took into consideration. However, if we were going to extend it to all of the other workflows then these other products were not quite right.

All the business process management tools are quite similar. We have to get used to each application's individual ideas, thoughts, and intentions. We use BIC for our organization and Camunda for the projects. It is easier to use Camunda for small projects. Signavio is also a competitor.

We have compared Camunda with the Bonita platform, and Camunda came out as the preferred choice in terms of features and functionality.

We are currently promoting the product to our customers. They are using Oracle BPEL, which is a licensed solution. They need an open-source tool. So, we are suggesting Camunda to them. Camunda is comparable with the licensed products. The competitors might provide more features compared to Camunda, but they are not that valuable.

When we started to build Digital Product Center, we evaluated several options available at that time. We decided to use Camunda due to several reasons, but primarily due to the most valuable features mentioned above.

We evaluated ActiveVOS and, in the past, we've looked at IBM BPM.

I reviewed Sygnavio and Pega Systems. 

I chose the Camunda BPM, because I am domain-oriented, and I saw that many companies, especially in my domain, the insurance domain, are using Camunda BPM and that gave me the insight as to where I should focus my efforts.

I have worked with Pegasystems. Primarily, Pega operates on a case-based licensing model, where each workflow incurs charges. Many customers opt for Camunda for basic workflows and case management to save costs. However, for enterprise-level needs, especially those involving CRM functionalities, Pega is retained. Some organizations have transitioned specific workflows to Camunda while keeping Pega for comprehensive CRM solutions.

Yes. We evaluated JBPM and Activiti BPM before finalizing Camunda

I used Bizagi before. It's easier to implement, but the problem is that you have to use their suite. You have to use their screen, their admin screens, or user screens. The UX and UI experience is also not good.

We decided to go with Camunda BPM because it gave us what we needed. That is, we can get inside Camunda and use only the tracker of the application. We don't need to use mandatory things like your pages or your web forms.

We can really code what we want and use it. We can create our own UI while using Camunda BPM at the same time. We really liked that because in my company specifically, we use a lot of UX, so all the UIs were very important for us.

Camunda BPM allows us to have a BPM bot with our own UI, and that's what we liked most about Camunda.

We did a lot of POCs on available products in the market, such as Bonitasoft, Camunda, Bizagi, so on. However, based on that POCs, we found that the best way to go forward in our solution in terms of the functionality and the accuracy of the XML files. If they could be generated by Camunda it can be more useful for us to adopt in our solution.

We also looked at IBM BPM, Peg, and Appian.

We wanted an open source engine. Therefore we did not evaluate other engines such as Mendix, Pega.

When I compare it to other BPM tools, like IBM, it is great, open source, and free when you use the community version. We are also working on the enterprise version, so we are very satisfied.

We evaluated Activiti as a possible alternative to Camunda but we decided to go with Camunda. 

We did evaluate other options, but we were looking for something that was open source and small and there's not too much choice for those options.

We evaluated lots of other options before choosing this solution. We did a POC with the base of the solutions, and we were able to get further with Camunda more quickly.

What won us over was the extensive API and the ability to actually get the DMN working easy.

Camunda and Red Hat were on our shortlist.

We just roughly touched Apache Kafka.