We performed a comparison between Apache Airflow and Appian 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."Every feature in Apache Airflow is valuable. The number of operators and features I've used are mainly related to connectivity services and integrated services because I primarily work with GCP."
"Apache Airflow is in Python language, making it easy to use and learn."
"Since the solution is programmatic, it allows users to define pipelines in code rather than drag and drop."
"This is a simple tool to automate using Python."
"Its user-friendly interface makes it straightforward to operate, offering a plethora of features for data preparation, buffering, and format conversion."
"I found the following features very useful: DAG - Workload management and orchestration of tasks using."
"Development on Apache Airflow is really fast, and it's easy to use with the newer updates. Everything is in Python, so it's not hard to understand. They also have a graphical view, so if you are not a programmer and you are just an administrator, you can easily track everything and see if everything is working or not."
"One of its most valuable features is the graphical user interface, providing a visual representation of the pipeline status, successes, failures, and informative developer messages."
"I find the BPM the most valuable feature."
"It reduces development time in half making us more efficient."
"It provides us with real-time data on all connected systems in terms of how they're integrated with each other and how they are performing in a workflow manner."
"We appreciate the drag and drop functionality and the easy to access plug and play features."
"With low-code, we don't need a lot of coding, and then from the plumbing perspective, there is a complete CI/CD pipeline that exists within Appian that can be leveraged for open deployment."
"The tool is very flexible."
"Process Modeling enables creation of business process workflows. You can create complex business workflows in a visual manner, and it is also easy to debug/monitor."
"Write to Data Store Entity - Saving data in SQL databases is done easily using entities. Entities (CDTs in Appian terminology) define relationships and target schema tables via XSD files."
"We cannot run real-time jobs in the solution."
"Adding more automated components in Apache Airflow for basic things like exporting the data would be helpful."
"The solution could be improved by simplifying the integration process."
"UI can be improved with additional user-friendly features for non-programmers and for fewer coding practitioner requirements."
"It would be beneficial to improve the pricing structure."
"There is a need for more features on experimental evolution steps."
"We're currently using version 1.10, but I understand that there's a lot of improvements in version 2. In the earlier version that we're using, we sometimes have problems with maintenance complexity. Actually using Airflow is okay, but maintaining it has been difficult."
"The problem with Apache Airflow is that it is an open-source tool. You have to build it into a Kubernetes container, which is not easy to maintain, and I find it to be very clunky."
"There are four areas I believe Appian could improve in. The first is a seamless contact center integration. Appian does not have a contact center feature. The second is advanced features in RPA. The third would be chatbot and email bot integration—while Appian comes with chatbot and email bot, it's not as mature as it should be, compared to the competition. The fourth area would be next best action, since there is not much of this sort of feature in Appian. These are all features which competitors' products have, and in a mature manner, whereas Appian lacks on these four areas. I see customers who are moving from Appian to Pega because these features are not in Appian."
"There are some restrictions with respect to using external components within Appian. So, for example, if we do not have a particular feature available, there's a long cycle of getting approvals and all of that. That does not offer flexibility, which definitely can be improved on."
"We would like to see more reduced latency. We would like to make sure that the scale-out factor will be much more as workloads come in."
"They should provide more flexibility so designers can create a more picture perfect device."
"It has it's own built-in UI components and doesn't provide much flexibility to customize or extend those components."
"There should be more flexibility for the developers to choose the look and feel of the UI. They should have a better ability to design their widgets and customize them with different colors, shapes, and sizes. That is a limitation that could be improved upon."
"The solution needs more features. For example, a way to connect to our viewing database, to record, and more interface and component design."
"There could be a scope of enhancement for capturing the variety of use cases."
Apache Airflow is ranked 2nd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 31 reviews while Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 58 reviews. Apache Airflow is rated 8.0, while Appian is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Apache Airflow writes "Enable seamless integration with various connectivity and integrated services, including BigQuery and Python operators ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". Apache Airflow is most compared with Camunda, IBM BPM, Informatica Cloud API and App Integration, IBM Business Automation Workflow and OpenText 360 for SharePoint, whereas Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, Camunda, ServiceNow, OutSystems and Pega BPM. See our Apache Airflow vs. Appian report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) 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.