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.
"The most valuable features of Appian are workflow management and the ease with which you can build the UI."
"The most valuable feature is business automation."
"It's a stable product."
"In terms of interface, it's very good. In terms of infrastructure, it's amazing and already using multiple tools behind the scenes. It's a low-code platform, so it's very easy to implement."
"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 product has a very good mobile app."
"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."
"Low code development: Code can be developed pretty quickly which leads to less turnaround time for automation of business processes."
"We have been able to save costs using this solution compared to the product we used before."
"I think that the positives of Camunda Platform are that our customers can start with the free version. I think it is the most important."
"We have the ability to modify the product if we need to, and that comes in handy whenever we need to add new functionality and features."
"The solution is useful for small projects."
"We are documenting all of the processors and VPN. Then we are sharing it with our business users."
"I've found the active community most valuable but it also provides you with a lot of other features."
"We can share, discuss, and develop the model together — from a distance. It's really helped us during these times of isolation."
"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."
"I wouldn't say their response time is long, but it could be quicker."
"One room for improvement is the ease of UI UX development, like in OutSystems and Mendix."
"It needs better integration with our existing application ecosystem."
"Appian could be improved by making it a strict, no-code platform with free-built process packs."
"We would like to see more reduced latency. We would like to make sure that the scale-out factor will be much more as workloads come in."
"Appian is easy to set up, but JBoss is complex. JBoss is the application server for running Appian."
"The solution could improve robotic process automation."
"Form creation and SAIL proprietary language still basically require programming. The claim a BA type can do everything is hogwash."
"I'm from the .NET world and I would like to use it, rather than Java."
"We're trying to put the people from the business to do it. We are using APIs, and we have open APIs to define our APIs and the request-response that each call requires and sends. So, to base the mapping on that, there was nothing to help. I know that with some tools, such as Oracle tools, you can see the input and expected output. With drag and drop, you can take one property from the left and drag it to the right, and it does all the mapping itself, but that's not the case with Camunda. So, for me, this is something that can be improved."
"It has a Postgres database at the backend, and it is very difficult to scale if you increase the number of processes running. We did hit some barriers. We were able to overcome them, but it was a problem. Camunda has another product called Camunda Cloud, which supposedly doesn't have the same scalability problems, but we are not using Camunda Cloud because the set of features is smaller than Camunda On-Premises. So, its scalability can be improved. Because it has a single database, it is more difficult to scale if you have a huge success."
"They could provide more documentation regarding the integration of different programming languages."
"The solution could use some enhancements like adding connectors, improving forms and having a mobile app, but everything is an enhancement rather than a flaw."
"When building interfaces, there are limited tools to work with, especially when dealing with different types of tasks, such as user tasks and system tasks."
"When addressing a complex and extensive process, the domain it belongs to, be it banking, healthcare, or HR, requires widespread access."
"Community support is basically what I'm looking for. Other than that, it is okay for now."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 56 reviews while Camunda is ranked 1st in Business Process Management (BPM) with 68 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.
