Compare Appian vs. Camunda BPM
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros | |
"Process culture is making noise inside the organization because now, everybody knows that their time is being monitored." "Since implementing we have had a faster time to solution, with fewer resources needed." "The process models provide self-documenting systems." "We appreciate the drag and drop functionality and the easy to access plug and play features." "Appian also has very flexible local integration." "Good workflow engines that bridge the gaps of processes." "Form building capabilities and well thought out process modelling are key points to this 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." | "For an internal project, this is a solution that you can install and have up and running quite quickly." "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." "The number of client implementations and cross-language capabilities to support multiple frameworks is very pluggable compared to Pega. It's also more portable." "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." "When I compare it with other BPM tools, like IBM, it is great, open source, and free when you use the community version." "The solution is easily compatible with HTML forms and HTML language programming and that is the most significant part." "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." |
Cons | |
"The documentation needs to be improved." "We would like to have more granular control for interface styling." "My only request is that they decrease the license costs." "The solution could use some more tutorials to help brand new users figure out how to use the product effectively." "They should provide more flexibility so designers can create a more picture perfect device." "Lacks integration with other products." "Authoring tool is slow to use resulted in limitations on how quickly solutions can be built." "It is also not easy to learn. Training tutorials could be improved." | "The GUI needs to be improved, with more configuration options." "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." "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 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." "I would like to see the forms engine available in the open-source version of this solution." "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 would also like a very easy to use form builder." "Especially when you use the open-source version, there are issues with performance." |
Pricing and Cost Advice | |
"The cost depends on the number of users, although I recommend taking an unlimited license." "The solution offers a monthly subscription model. That's what we use. I recall it being about $90 a month. They do have different tiers." "It's an enterprise tool and can be used by enterprise only. So it's a very expensive tool." | "We are using the open-source version of this solution." "Camunda is much cheaper." "I use the open-source free version." "The open-source version of the product is free to use." "The cost of this solution is better than some competing products." "Licensing costs are anywhere from $80,000 to $100,000 USD per year." "We use the open-source version, which can be used at no cost." "I think Camunda BPM can improve their licensing costs. It isn't easy to find clients with Camunda BPM licenses mainly because it's quite expensive." |
 Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Management solutions are best for your needs. 454,950 professionals have used our research since 2012. | |
Questions from the Community | |
Ask a question Earn 20 points | Top Answer: Hi dear knauf
its pleasure to see you in a good position, you were always in the top of specialist.
your advise and solutions make your customer to takeoff their business. |
Ranking  | |
Views 14,452 Comparisons 10,816 Reviews 8 Average Words per Review 481 Rating 8.8 | Views 35,334 Comparisons 23,059 Reviews 19 Average Words per Review 567 Rating 7.9 |
Popular Comparisons | |
 Compared 16% of the time.  Compared 13% of the time.  Compared 11% of the time.  Compared 6% of the time.  Compared 6% of the time. |  Compared 18% of the time.  Compared 15% of the time. Compared 12% of the time. Compared 10% of the time.  Compared 4% of the time. |
Also Known As | |
| Appian BPM, Appian AnyWhere, Appian Enterprise BPMS | |
Learn | |
| Appian | camunda |
Overview | |
| With Appian, your organization can rapidly build, deploy, use, and scale problem-solving apps. And with the flexibility of on-premises and cloud portability, you'll always address your unique challenges the way that makes the most sense for you. | Camunda BPM is a light-weight, open source platform for Business Process Management. It is a perfect match for general software development and provides powerful business-IT-alignment based on BPMN for structured workflows, CMMN for less structured cases and DMN for business rules. Typical use cases for Camunda BPM are:
|
Offer | |
Learn more about Appian | Learn more about Camunda BPM |
Sample Customers | |
| Hansard Global plc, Punch Taverns, Pirelli, Crawford & Company, EDP Renewables, Queensland Government Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (, Bank of Tennessee | AT&T Inc., Allianz Indonesia, Deutsche WertpapierService Bank AG, CSS Insurance, Provinzial NordWest Insurance Services, VHV Group, freenet Group, Swisscom AG, Zalando SE, Accruent |
Top Industries | |
Financial Services Firm42% University17% Computer Software Company17% Healthcare Company8% Computer Software Company35% Comms Service Provider13% Financial Services Firm10% Government7% | Financial Services Firm31% Comms Service Provider23% Non Profit15% Government15% Computer Software Company30% Comms Service Provider19% Financial Services Firm11% Government6% |
Company Size | |
Small Business32% Midsize Enterprise20% Large Enterprise48% Small Business14% Midsize Enterprise18% Large Enterprise68% | Small Business52% Midsize Enterprise17% Large Enterprise31% Small Business13% Midsize Enterprise22% Large Enterprise64% |
Find out what your peers are saying about Appian vs. Camunda BPM and other solutions. Updated: January 2021.
454,950 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Appian is ranked 7th in Business Process Management with 8 reviews while Camunda BPM is ranked 1st in Business Process Management with 19 reviews. Appian is rated 8.8, while Camunda BPM is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Offers flexible local integration that we have used extensively to integrate with our Legacy system". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Camunda BPM writes "Component reusability saves us development time, but the learning curve is too steep". Appian is most compared with ServiceNow, Pega BPM, Mendix, OutSystems and IBM BPM, whereas Camunda BPM is most compared with Apache Airflow, Bonita, Pega BPM, IBM BPM and Amazon Step Functions. See our Appian vs. Camunda BPM report.
See our list of best Business Process Management vendors.
We monitor all Business Process Management 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.