We performed a comparison between AWS Step Functions and IBM 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."It's a general solution that you can adapt to your own needs and is simple to use. We like that it can be integrated with everything in the AWS suite, and that the creation of the pipeline can be done using the graphical user interface."
"The integration capability is easy, whereas building state machines is tricky."
"What I like the most about Amazon Step Functions is how easy it is to use."
"It's Amazon, it's scalable."
"The solution is stable...The solution is easy to scale."
"It is a scalable solution."
"One can rate all the calls and that is a good feature."
"AWS Step Functions acts as a high-level layer, allowing us to seamlessly integrate with microservices."
"The case management and its integration with process design are good features."
"Compliance with the BPMN 2.0 standard."
"The solution is stable."
"It is transparent to business users because it is mostly picture based modelling."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The Process Designer is good. We like how we can drag and drop and link the processes up, that works out great for us."
"It is efficient in reducing costs."
"It helps maintain, and in many instances, lower costs, as well as to maintain those costs, keeping them stable."
"The solution's data size limit can be improved."
"Setup took about one day. We had some errors to understand in the beginning, but now everything is working good."
"The interface can sometimes feel limited, as we're unable to see what AWS is running behind the scenes."
"It is hard to coordinate the declaratory language."
"I would like to see more data transformation features in Amazon Step Functions like additional operators and logic."
"The solution's pricing could be cheaper. It is cheaper than Airflow."
"The price and support are areas with shortcomings where the solution needs to improve."
"The pricing of the solution can be improved."
"We would like better performance and more visibility on each step of the tool."
"The pricing is a little bit high. It's gone up in cost."
"The options for customization could be improved. More customization using your own code would be beneficial."
"It is a rather thick stack because you have to have WebSphere skills, IBM BPM skills, and an understanding of how the product runs on WebSphere. A lot of this will start to get a lot easier as they put it in containers, which will allow the platform to manage itself in some regards."
"The integration could be improved."
"Better integration with other products in the automation suite."
"When you have to integrate files for enterprise applications."
"Performance on large scale requirements could also be improved."
AWS Step Functions is ranked 12th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 9 reviews while IBM BPM is ranked 5th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 105 reviews. AWS Step Functions is rated 7.8, while IBM BPM is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of AWS Step Functions writes "Simplifies complex task automation and enhances development workflows while offering user-friendly interface, seamless scalability and efficient workflow orchestration". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM BPM writes "Offers good case management and its integration with process design but there's a learning curve". AWS Step Functions is most compared with Camunda, Pega BPM, Oracle BPM, Apache Airflow and IBM Business Automation Workflow, whereas IBM BPM is most compared with Camunda, Appian, Pega BPM, IBM Business Automation Workflow and SAP Signavio Process Manager. See our AWS Step Functions vs. IBM BPM 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.