We performed a comparison between Appian and OpenText MBPM 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 is really simple to create a new app, and I like the data-centric aspect of the BPM tool."
"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."
"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."
"The tool is very flexible."
"The tech support is quite good."
"There is no need to worry about vulnerabilities in the system, because Appian built a secure system."
"The initial setup is easy."
"Appian has many valuable features, the first being the ease of development—rapid development. Second, the process of learning the product and tool is faster when compared to its peers in the market. It's closer to low-code, and while it's still not very easy, it's more low-code than other products in the industry. Appian has a good user interface, a seamless model user interface, which comes without additional coding. It can also integrate with multiple systems."
"Not just the solution's automation capabilities, but we like everything about it since we are more of a system integrator."
"Lacks business rules management as part of the solution."
"What could be improved is more on the front end perspective, like the user interface and the mobile application aspect."
"I would like to see more complete university tools. For example, with UiPath, I have had a good experience related to a free course in order to provide some users some different levels of knowledge. This extra training helps users not only use the solution but to develop further within the tool."
"There could be a scope of enhancement for capturing the variety of use cases."
"Occasionally, certain pre-made modules may not be necessary and customers may desire greater customization options. Instead of being limited to pre-designed features, they may prefer a more flexible version that allows for greater customization."
"A point of improvement would be the SAIL forms. The built-in tool used to generate forms does not have debugging support (to view local variables as they change on live preview, and step-by-step valuation) which is a big drawback for form development. Moreover, the script language used to build SAIL forms does not support inheritance or lambda expressions (functions as arguments of other functions), which makes the code base more verbose."
"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."
"If that had more DevOps capabilities, it would be an excellent product."
"The user interface could be better in OpenText MBPM."
"There are shortcomings in the solution's support and documentation part."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 58 reviews while OpenText MBPM is ranked 41st in Business Process Management (BPM) with 2 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while OpenText MBPM is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText MBPM writes " A solution offering good automation capabilities while needing to improve its support and documentation". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, Camunda, ServiceNow, OutSystems and Pega BPM, whereas OpenText MBPM is most compared with Camunda and webMethods Integration Server. See our Appian vs. OpenText MBPM 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.