Camunda 7-class performance, measured rather than asserted.
One identical invoice-approval process, deployed unchanged on Camunda 7, on Fluxnova and on Camunda 8, run on Amazon EKS in June 2026. Zero failures on every engine at every volume. The interesting result is not which one won.
Preliminary results showing relative behavior on the documented workload. This is not a certified production benchmark, and it is our process on our infrastructure — your models are not our models. Full method and environment specifications are below and available in full on request.
Two engines in one class. One in another.
Fluxnova and Camunda 7 completed a thousand workflows within a few seconds of each other. Camunda 8 took about fifteen times as long on the same process, because it is a different architecture rather than a slower one.
Every number, at both volumes.
Throughput is completed instances divided by total wall-clock time. Both volumes ran on the same driver, the same process definition and the same out-of-the-box configuration.
| Engine | 300 workflows | 1,000 workflows | Failures |
|---|---|---|---|
| Camunda 7 v7.24.0 | 6.7s · 45/s | 16.7s · 60/s | None |
| Fluxnova v2.0.0 | 6.0s · 50/s | 21.3s · 47/s | None |
| Camunda 8 v8.8.0 | 104s · 3/s | 315s · 3/s | None |
Every run completed every instance. The difference between these engines is fit for this workload, not reliability.
The honest reading of four numbers.
That is the number that matters if you are deciding whether to move off Camunda 7 Community Edition. It says the move does not cost you throughput.
We read that as normal benchmark variance rather than a meaningful advantage for either. Anyone presenting one of those two runs on its own is selecting a result.
Some organizations need exactly that. The question this benchmark cannot answer for you is whether those properties are worth the overhead on your own processes.
No engine here is unreliable. If a benchmark of this shape had produced failures, that would have been the story instead.
One benchmark on one process is evidence about that process. It is a reason to run your own, not a substitute for having done so.
An architectural difference, stated without a verdict.
The three engines are not three implementations of one design, and the numbers above are mostly a picture of that.
“Organizations can migrate from Camunda 7 to Fluxnova without sacrificing performance, compatibility, or operational simplicity. For organizations evaluating their post-Camunda 7 strategy, Fluxnova delivers Camunda 7-class performance and a compelling open-source alternative to costly platform migrations.”
This ran on 2.0.0. 3.0 changed what runs inside a process.
These figures were produced in June 2026 against Fluxnova v2.0.0, and they are a throughput measurement of a deterministic invoice process. Version 3.0 shipped in July with MCP integration and agentic adhoc subprocesses, which means an agent can now invoke a process and determine its own steps at runtime. That is a change in what the engine can do, not in how fast it does it, and this benchmark says nothing about it.
How it was run, so you can take it apart.
Published so you can judge how far it carries to your own models. A benchmark whose method is not stated is an assertion with a number attached.
| What | How |
|---|---|
| The process | One identical BPMN invoice-approval definition, deployed unchanged to each engine. No per-engine tuning of the model. |
| The environment | Amazon EKS, us-east-1. Out-of-the-box configuration on every engine, so none of them is tuned and none is handicapped. |
| The driver | 300 and 1,000 instances started across ten concurrent threads, measuring wall-clock time until every instance completes. Throughput is completed instances divided by that total. |
| The versions | Camunda 7 v7.24.0, Fluxnova v2.0.0, Camunda 8 v8.8.0. Run June 2026. |
| What it is not | Not a certified production benchmark, not tuned for peak on any engine, and not a projection for your estate. Full environment specifications on request. |
Our numbers are a reason to get your own.
We provision a dedicated Managed Fluxnova environment for your team for thirty days, at no charge and with no commitment. Bring this invoice benchmark or bring your own BPMN models.
Your models, your volumes, your data — and the results are yours to keep whether or not the conversation goes anywhere. What the environment includes →
Bring us the process you would want measured.
The edition you are on, roughly how many process definitions are in production, and what is forcing the move. We will come back with what the migration actually involves, and what we would want to measure first on your own models rather than ours.
Request an environment
Tell us what you want to test.
We will provision a dedicated Managed Fluxnova environment and come back to you with access details and the next steps.