We performed a comparison between Appian and OpenText AppWorks 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."Appian is easy to install and set up, and it does not come out with your audit. It has accessible process orchestration and process management. With Appian, the time to market is much faster."
"Technical support is quite responsive."
"It has created executable requirements and speeds up the SDLC process greatly."
"Call Web Service Smart Service - Web service integrations with other systems are super simple and fast to create, supported by low code menus."
"Appian is a very low code platform. It's very easy to learn and use."
"Form building capabilities and well thought out process modelling are key points to this product."
"It has very flexible adaptation and the ability to save and automate processes."
"The low code functionality and being able to get applications faster to customers or to the market are valuable."
"We really appreciate the process automation and how can you create human tasks as one of your processes."
"The monitoring aspect is highly valuable, as it offers an exceptional capability to track every minute of action performed by a business user in the global context."
"From a business perspective, the most valuable aspect lies in the optimization of processes."
"AppWorks is a very quick development platform with low-coding capability and strong integration with third-party systems."
"OpenText AppWorks has standard features such as system-to-system and human-to-human integrations, but what I find most valuable in the solution is its monitoring feature that tells you more about your processes, how to restart and how to stop each process, etc."
"One of the most useful features is the code is customizable, we can make it our own."
"We've automated several processes, including purchase requisition to purchase orders, RFQ processes, vendor onboarding, project budgeting, and business case creation. The recent versions of OpenText AppWorks, especially those incorporating low-code functionalities, have had a significant positive impact. In some cases, we've observed a remarkable reduction in development time, ranging from 50 to 75 percent. The MTP model and life cycle have facilitated rapid development cycles."
"In terms of the scalability and the handling of complexity, the customers are satisfied, and we also have confidence in the solution to achieve whatever implementations are required."
"The ability of the interface to load automatic data is not great."
"I wouldn't say their response time is long, but it could be quicker."
"It has it's own built-in UI components and doesn't provide much flexibility to customize or extend those components."
"There could be a scope of enhancement for capturing the variety of use cases."
"Lacks business rules management as part of the solution."
"Offline capabilities and responsive capabilities could be better. The mobility features of Appian platform are still evolving."
"Native mobile capabilities or hybrid mobile app capabilities are very limited. Things like offline sync, offline storage, access to smartphone device features, etc. are not supported by the Appian platform yet."
"The biggest areas of improvement would be in facilitating team development, DevOps, and integration with typical tools used in enterprise development (Jenkins, Subversion, etc.)"
"OpenText AppWork's low-code capabilities can be enhanced by integrating them with AI offerings like Aviator."
"The integration could improve."
"The crucial missing element is the archival function."
"AppWorks could be improved by including BPM simulation."
"A room for improvement in OpenText AppWorks is its user interface. It should have mobile compatibility because right now, you still have to make two applications with a user interface for Android and a user interface for iOS, so if OpenText AppWorks can provide one UI that can be used across all devices, that would make the solution better. An additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of OpenText AppWorks is a better UI in terms of the look and feel. Another feature I'd like to see in the next version of the solution is mobile compatibility because, at the moment, you have to make your application mobile-ready or compatible with mobile devices because there's no provision for it in OpenText AppWorks."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing structure."
"There could be some improvements with the low code design part. It could be more customizable and more user friendly."
"The solution needs to continue to enhance the low-coding feature within the product itself."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 58 reviews while OpenText AppWorks is ranked 16th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 8 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while OpenText AppWorks is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText AppWorks writes "Automates processes like purchase requisition to purchase orders, RFQ processes, vendor onboarding, project budgeting, and business case creation". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, Camunda, ServiceNow, OutSystems and Pega BPM, whereas OpenText AppWorks is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, ServiceNow Now Platform, OutSystems, Mendix and Pega BPM. See our Appian vs. OpenText AppWorks 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.