I am not sure if I am comparing Apples to Oranges, but both Camunda and Step Functions of AWS seem to address the same thing: Workflows. Help me with the comparison of both, which to use when. Are they replaceable?
Asked
Active
Viewed 5,944 times
1 Answers
13
You are not comparing apples to oranges. Both tools are workflow engines.
As a background read, the comparison is also discussed for example here: https://forum.camunda.org/t/bpmn-vs-aws-step-function/5460.
Differences in essence:
- Process modeling language (Proprietary Amazon State Language vs. standardized BPMN supporting more language constructs from http://www.workflowpatterns.com/)
- Visualization of process models for different stakeholders (simple auto-generated for Step Functions, BPMN for Camunda)
- Architecture possibilities (Step functions are cloud-only and even AWS-only, but then of course integrated in the AWS world; Camunda is independent and can run in any environment, but also needs additional work to integrate with AWS).
As a rule of thumb:
- Use Step Functions if you have quite technical workflows that need to work only in the AWS world
- Use Camunda in all other cases, including more hybrid environments and "bigger" processes
I also described this more in https://processautomationbook.com/

Bernd Ruecker
- 970
- 5
- 6
-
6Just to add if it's not obvious to the reader of the above answer since he didn't mention his credentials: @Bernd Ruecker is the Co-Founder and Chief Technologist of Camunda. So he's very much super-qualified to answer this question. :) His answer is quite fair (although there's obvious temptation to be biased). Also interesting now is: AWS Step Functions vs Camunda Cloud / Zeebe. – Hendy Irawan Oct 12 '21 at 18:16
-
Thanks for the overview! The second point has had some AWS improvements since the time of the answer (2021), most notably a full Workflow Studio. See https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-aws-step-functions-workflow-studio-a-low-code-visual-tool-for-building-state-machines/ – Willem Mulder Jun 14 '23 at 13:43