We performed a comparison between Boomi AtomSphere Flow and Microsoft Power Apps based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Low-Code Development Platforms solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."In the long run, if you have a good team, solution architect, and an architect from Boomi's side, then it is a good tool from an ROI perspective since it can help save money."
"Boomi AtomSphere Flow is integrated through APIs, it exposes the API and any product can call the APIs in the queue. Additionally, it is secure."
"Boomi AtomSphere Flow is very easy to develop and maintain compared to other tools like SAP HANA Cloud Integration or Cloud Platform."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its core integration with Boomi AtomSphere because it's extremely easy to tap into any informational system of a company."
"The most valuable feature is the simple data connectivity components."
"We particularly like the workflow connectors in the forms, for information introduction purposes."
"The most valuable feature is the compatibility with other Microsoft components."
"The scalability is good."
"The most valuable feature is the completeness of the concept. It is not restricted by where you are allowed to use it and that is its greatest strength."
"The solution is excellent at figuring how to build an application in three months. It makes it very quick and easy."
"The flows are good because they can be used in a variety of situations."
"I like the galleries, which are really powerful."
"The solution's user interface building needs improvement."
"The development effort with Boomi AtomSphere Flow is more when you compare it with other tools, which is a drawback and an area of improvement."
"Its stability could be improved."
"The solution could improve by being more user-friendly. The whole solution is used through an interface and it could always be improved."
"Customer support needs improvement."
"We'd like more features and less to no coding."
"Microsoft should combine both the web and the mobile environment with all of the layers of development into one package."
"One of the major problems with it is what PowerApps calls the delegation warning. Regardless of what platform, data source, et cetera, that you're using, you can't retrieve more than 2000 records."
"The product could be improved by making it a production application and enabling the export of apps."
"In terms of workflow automation, I believe that capabilities for creating the entire business process are required, or, at the very least, the option to model the business process, define complex business events, handle them, and route them to appropriate business stakeholders."
"In an upcoming release, I would like to see custom APIs, better integration with other solutions, and more connectors available."
"It has to improve the threshold limit where it can handle data beyond 5000 items."
Boomi AtomSphere Flow is ranked 19th in Low-Code Development Platforms with 4 reviews while Microsoft Power Apps is ranked 1st in Low-Code Development Platforms with 78 reviews. Boomi AtomSphere Flow is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Power Apps is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Boomi AtomSphere Flow writes "A competent solution for integrating enterprise-grade software". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Power Apps writes "Low-code, low learning curve, and reduces manpower". Boomi AtomSphere Flow is most compared with Camunda, Apache Airflow, Pega BPM, Mendix and AWS Step Functions, whereas Microsoft Power Apps is most compared with Oracle Application Express (APEX), Mendix, ServiceNow, Appian and Microsoft Azure App Service. See our Boomi AtomSphere Flow vs. Microsoft Power Apps report.
See our list of best Low-Code Development Platforms vendors.
We monitor all Low-Code Development Platforms 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.