We performed a comparison between Camunda and MEGA HOPEX based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Design solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Having knowledge of the BPM and monitoring process has proven to be very beneficial, as I am currently engaged in documenting processes for Clientele."
"It is very user-friendly compared to IBM BPM. It's much simpler – it's more streamlined. That means even non-technical departments can use it."
"One reason we selected Camunda or Cloud/DB is that it comes with the support of the BPMN notation, which helps to define processes in a standard manner. Another reason was that Camunda Cloud, as the name says, is designed for a new cloud era."
"The solution is useful for small projects."
"We can share, discuss, and develop the model together — from a distance. It's really helped us during these times of isolation."
"The most valuable features are the management of internal processes, the ability to execute from design and the model for internal processes, the ability to make processes visible, and the ability to have information about the current state of each instance."
"We are documenting all of the processors and VPN. Then we are sharing it with our business users."
"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 most valuable features of MEGA HOPEX are the seamless VPA module and the good user experience. There are built-in connections that provide integration with other platforms, such as ServiceNow. There is a lot of customization available allowing a lot of freedom. The solution is updated frequently adding new features. For example, the feature GraphQL can be integrated into other solutions, such as ManageEngine for ITSM solutions. You are able to use GraphQL to connect APIs and query the APIs."
"This is a complete package with all of the functionality that we need."
"The main feature I find crucial in MEGA HOPEX is the catalog view, which provides a comprehensive visualization of all artifacts in one repository. Another valuable aspect is the availability of out-of-the-box outcomes, such as strategy maps and BPA models, eliminating the need for additional configuration. MEGA HOPEX allows users to focus on specific business areas, like risk management or data governance, providing a high-level overview while enabling deep dives into specific areas of interest. For risk management, MEGA HOPEX allows users to assess impacts, create recovery plans, and track action plans."
"The most valuable parts of this solution are the richness of its features and its easy interface."
"You do not need to be a professional of enterprise modeling to contribute to the enrichment and improvement of the enterprise repository."
"The solution itself was easy to use."
"MEGA offers a more integrated GRC platform to facilitate enhanced coordination between the functions of Risk, Compliance, and Internal Audit on a single platform solution - HOPEX."
"Every module sets up the same information in a unique repository."
"There are a few things that I'm missing. For instance, the user interface creator, which I know other systems have, like Aurea or Lombardi, which are IBM solutions. The interface creator, including the data model creator or some module which would allow the users who are not programmers or business consultants and who are not technically skilled in database and Java programming, to create data models and user interfaces."
"I would also like a very easy to use form builder."
"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 only drawback is the time that it takes to have a complete set of workflows implemented on the Camunda platform."
"When addressing a complex and extensive process, the domain it belongs to, be it banking, healthcare, or HR, requires widespread access."
"They could provide more documentation regarding the integration of different programming languages."
"Process interfaces between diagrams could be improved."
"As we experienced some difficulties in the beginning, deployment took almost a month."
"We have a very close relationship with MEGA representatives in Mexico, and we ask them why they don't offer impact analysis. For example, we have a server in the center and provide the client a view of what's in the peripheral area, like one cluster, application, process area, and services. We want to offer our clients that level of visibility with HOPEX."
"It has a data domain where we load our data objects onto the tool but doesn't provide data governance capabilities such as cleansing or validating data."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"I cannot recall coming across any missing features."
"The solution lacks additional models compared to other tools."
"The initial setup is a little complex."
"Lacking more out of the box integrations."
"Better documentation and training would be helpful."
Camunda is ranked 2nd in Business Process Design with 68 reviews while MEGA HOPEX is ranked 8th in Business Process Design with 36 reviews. Camunda is rated 8.2, while MEGA HOPEX is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Camunda writes "Open-source, easy to define new processes, and easy to transition to new business process definitions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of MEGA HOPEX writes "Easy to use and robust with good features". Camunda is most compared with Apache Airflow, Bizagi, Pega BPM, IBM BPM and Appian, whereas MEGA HOPEX is most compared with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, LeanIX, ARIS BPA, Avolution ABACUS and Lucidchart. See our Camunda vs. MEGA HOPEX report.
See our list of best Business Process Design vendors.
We monitor all Business Process Design 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.
