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.
"Appian is easy to install and set up, and it does not come out with your audit. It has accessible process orchestration and process management. With Appian, the time to market is much faster."
"With low-code, we don't need a lot of coding, and then from the plumbing perspective, there is a complete CI/CD pipeline that exists within Appian that can be leveraged for open deployment."
"Good workflow engines that bridge the gaps of processes."
"Appian also has very flexible local integration."
"Technical support has been amazing overall."
"It's heavy on business processing in terms of logic, process workflows, and primarily on the process design modeler. Appian is really great at that. In terms of the full stack set from a low-code platform perspective, it's definitely an eye opener since it can be deployed via mobile app and on the web as well."
"The solution has a lot of strong features for the financial industry, it is very easy to use."
"Form building capabilities and well thought out process modelling are key points to this product."
"The Camunda BPMN Platform is very flexible and gives several options to deploy and scale it."
", Camunda can be a powerful tool to work with when used in an optimized and well-implemented manner."
"Being able to use a Java-based solution makes the product flexible."
"The solution is easily compatible with HTML forms and HTML language programming and that is the most significant part."
"The most valuable feature of Camunda Platform is its Microservices architecture, which is easily integrable with APIs."
"We have a lot of users, almost 1,800, and we needed something affordable, stable and something that could be used by a large financial company. This solution truly fit the bill."
"The product is stable."
"Ease of use and ability to streamline a process model."
"It would be nice if you could create your own customized apps when the business needed them."
"The tool itself is pretty good, but the main area that we struggled with was the backend. The frontend development is really good, but the backend modeling can be streamlined a little bit. There are good integrations, but tying them through the data layer and then up into the frontend could be improved a little bit. It does read/write on the data source, and you can configure it to just write or just read, but there is a little bit of work involved."
"The solution could improve by being more responsive when dealing with large quantities of data. Additionally, they can make the decision or rules engine better. It cannot handle too many rules or too many decisions at once."
"There could be a scope of enhancement for capturing the variety of use cases."
"The ability of the interface to load automatic data is not great."
"Lacks business rules management as part of the solution."
"What could be improved is more on the front end perspective, like the user interface and the mobile application aspect."
"We'd like improved functionality for testing new devices."
"The documentation could use improvement."
"As we experienced some difficulties in the beginning, deployment took almost a month."
"Community support is basically what I'm looking for. Other than that, it is okay for now."
"If there were some industry templates it would have helped significantly, because it is similar to a process map for a domain. That is what we are currently creating, a domain-relevant process map."
"If they could build some scripts or some configuration to get it up and running in a Docker environment, that would be good. I didn't find anything when on Docker, however, maybe they have something and I didn't see it yet."
"They could provide more documentation regarding the integration of different programming languages."
"Like all BPM tools, they're very bad with proprietary UIs. In general, anyone who uses BPM tools should not expect to use their proprietary UI."
"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."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 56 reviews while Camunda is ranked 1st in Business Process Management (BPM) with 66 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, Pega BPM, Bizagi, 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.