We performed a comparison between AgilePoint and Pega BPM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Management (BPM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I like the design and the integration capacity. It's also easy to use."
"AgilePoint's most valuable feature is process management."
"AgilePoint has improved our organization by making form implementation easier and to plan for future growth."
"The initial setup of AgilePoint was very easy."
"The solution's workflows are its most useful feature."
"The interface is quite simple and easy to use, even for beginners."
"The ability to define processes, build reports, and get insights or analytics on data is most valuable. It is a powerful platform."
"There are a lot of frameworks in the product. I use Pega PRPC the most."
"The solution provides us with a very good dashboard."
"Pega BPM offers a lot of out-of-the-box functionalities."
"Application development is very rapid. A lot of code gets reused while building the applications, which is something we highly appreciate."
"The most valuable feature of Pega BPM is its architecture."
"Pega is a local platform that has evolved from a BPM perspective. This allows teams using this solution to address complexities without having deep knowledge in a specific development area."
"While the platform is good and it has a lot of options, I would like to see more alternative features in future versions such as connectors to IDM. Currently, they have only ADFS and Okta."
"The solution should be able to support Docker. This would help make scalability easier."
"It could be more flexible, but it's already a good solution for the designer."
"Some issues with AgilePoint's design, AI and UX are some of the major problems we deal with when handling our company's business models or processes."
"They should add more information about functionality."
"This is an expensive solution."
"The UI part needs improvement."
"Pega should work on redefining their model and creating a demand for their skills."
"Pega BPM could be improved by including token-based authentication and extending its integration options."
"Currently, there isn't any feature I want to be added in the next release of Pega BPM because Pega always adds new features that my team welcomes and looks forward to learning. One area for improvement in the solution is the long learning curve, but after that, you'll find Pega BPM easy to use."
"The cost of licensing could be improved."
"What should be included is some UI features and maybe some integrations. This includes documentation on how the UI works."
"It is scalable, but it also interacts with a lot of other systems. I think they thought that the interface to other systems, legacy systems, was its strength, but when problems do occur, quickly diagnosing those problems has been a challenge."
AgilePoint is ranked 31st in Business Process Management (BPM) with 5 reviews while Pega BPM is ranked 3rd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews. AgilePoint is rated 8.0, while Pega BPM is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of AgilePoint writes " An affordable tool to create workflows requiring an easy initial setup phase". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pega BPM writes "Provides built-in frameworks that can be reused and reduces time and cost". AgilePoint is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, Mendix, OutSystems, Nintex Process Platform and Camunda, whereas Pega BPM is most compared with ServiceNow, Camunda, Appian, IBM BPM and Microsoft Power Apps. See our AgilePoint vs. Pega BPM report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors, best Rapid Application Development Software vendors, and best Low-Code Development Platforms 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.