I’m currently evaluating workflow and orchestration tools, and I’m particularly interested in understanding the differences between Camunda 8 and Temporal. While I’m aware of the BPMN capabilities in Camunda 8, I’m looking for insights into other aspects where these two platforms might vary.
Could anyone please share their experiences or knowledge regarding features, performance, scalability, integration capabilities, or any other significant aspects that distinguish Temporal from Camunda 8
I’m not an expert in Camunda 8. But I can answer any specific question about Temporal that you might have to help with the comparison.
The main difference is that BPMN tools are not aimed at professional developers who hate XML and other similar configuration-based programming languages for writing business logic.
Temporal is targeting developers with its Durable Execution abstraction.
Hey @Jeswin 
I did some projects with Camunda 8. First of all the notation BPMN is standardised. Hence you have access to a variety of workflow engines which support the notation. It’s using XML, but you will rarely get exposed to it.
To me, Camunda focusses on the Business & IT alignment. So it is great if you have a real business process coming from subject matter experts. The notation is easily understandable for non-IT people as well. This can make requirements engineering a little easier. Camunda also provides some out of the box connectors (e.g. to Kafka or REST) as well as a decision engine which is capable of executing the DMN standard.
Temporal, on the other side is more focussed on a technical audience. Solving the same problem of orchestration but without involving subject matter experts which are not in IT.
Last but not least Camunda features some components which are closed source. Only the workflow-engine itself “Zeebe” is source available. Temporal has an MIT license.
Hopefully this helps! 