We performed a comparison between Appian and webMethods Integration Server 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."SAIL (Self-Assembling Interface Layer), a scripting language provided by Appian. It is the equivalent of JS and CSS. It allows creation of complex UIs which are also responsive. With SAIL, we have a single language for both the UI logic and its appearance. UI components can be built as reusable components and used in multiple UI interfaces."
"Good workflow engines that bridge the gaps of processes."
"Appian's most valuable feature is that we can create end-to-end process workflows with minimum turnaround."
"Low code development: Code can be developed pretty quickly which leads to less turnaround time for automation of business processes."
"Another advantage of this tool is its reports and records. You can maintain dashboards, layouts. If you with a Java solution, it takes six months time. If you use this tool, you can finish in one or one and a half months' time."
"The most valuable features of Appian are workflow management and the ease with which you can build the UI."
"The setup is easy."
"Form building capabilities and well thought out process modelling are key points to this product."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"It frankly fills the gap between IT and business by having approval and policy enforcement on each state and cycle of the asset from the moment it gets created until it is retired."
"The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is the built-in monitoring, auditing, RETS, and SOAP services."
"The synchronous and asynchronous messaging system the solution provides is very good."
"One [of the most valuable features] is the webMethods Designer. That helps our developers develop on their own. It's very intuitive for design. It helps our developers to speed the development of services for the integrations."
"One of the most important features is that it gives you the possibility to do low-level integration. It provides a lot of features out of the box, and over the years, it has matured so much that any problem that is there in the market can be solved with this product. We can meet any requirements through customizations, transformations, or the logic that needs to be put in. Some of the other products struggle in this aspect. They cannot do things in a certain way, or they have a product limitation, whereas, with webMethods, I have never faced this kind of problem."
"We needed a tool that was able to orchestrate and help us configure our APIs so that we could maintain and see the heartbeat, traffic, trends, etc."
"The tool supports gRPC."
"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."
"Sometimes, clients expect us to implement ERP using Appian, which is very complicated. In such cases, I don't believe that Appian is a good tool for that."
"It needs better integration with our existing application ecosystem."
"The graphical user interface could be easier to use. It should be simplified."
"Offline capabilities and responsive capabilities could be better. The mobility features of Appian platform are still evolving."
"Form creation and SAIL proprietary language still basically require programming. The claim a BA type can do everything is hogwash."
"It would be nice if you could create your own customized apps when the business needed them."
"It would be useful if they could create an academy or forum in the future to help active users answer questions they have about the solution."
"webMethods Integration Server needs to add more adapters."
"The UI for the admin console is very old. It hasn't been updated for years and is pretty much the same one that we started with. This is something that could be refreshed and made more modern."
"Documentation needs tuning. There is a lot of dependency with SoftwareAG. Even with the documentation at hand, you can struggle to implement scenarios without SAG’s help. By contrast, IBM’s documentation is self-explanatory, in my opinion."
"This product has too many gaps. You find them after update installations. This should be covered by automatic testing."
"It could be more user-friendly."
"The interface needs some work. It is not very user-friendly."
"It is quite expensive."
"The solution has big instances when deployed under microservices or in a containerized platform. They need to improve that so that it is competitive with other integration solutions, like Redis and Kafka. Deployments under microservices with those solutions are much more lightweight, in the size of the runtime itself, compared with Software AG."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 58 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, Camunda, ServiceNow, OutSystems and Pega BPM, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods.io Integration, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks and Boomi iPaaS. See our Appian vs. webMethods Integration Server report.
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.