We performed a comparison between Appian and BizFlow 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."What I found most valuable in Appian is that it lets you drill down on multiple things through the structure of the reporting and UI side. It's also low-code, yet it results in quick deliverables."
"The most valuable features of Appian are the VPN engine, it is fast, lightweight, and easy to set up business rules. Business teams can do it by themselves. That is a very good feature."
"Technical support is quite responsive."
"Process Modeling enables creation of business process workflows. You can create complex business workflows in a visual manner, and it is also easy to debug/monitor."
"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."
"The low code functionality and being able to get applications faster to customers or to the market are valuable."
"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."
"Since implementing we have had a faster time to solution, with fewer resources needed."
"There are so many advantages. First things, like we have a seamless automation capability available here in BizFlow. Totally customizable, UI we can create, and the third-party integration is also achievable. Not with the in-built functionality, but with custom code and all, we can achieve that thing also."
"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."
"The performance is pretty good, but the distortions need to be optimized in order for it to work well."
"Architecture of product and scalabiility issues."
"The graphical user interface could be easier to use. It should be simplified."
"The solution could improve by being more responsive when dealing with large quantities of data. Additionally, they can make the decision or rules engine better. It cannot handle too many rules or too many decisions at once."
"It would be nice if you could create your own customized apps when the business needed them."
"Form creation and SAIL proprietary language still basically require programming. The claim a BA type can do everything is hogwash."
"Appian could be improved by making it a strict, no-code platform with free-built process packs."
"Nintex provided an in-built functionality. Like integration-related things, so many service types are available. You just have to configure it. So, such kinds of things decrease the timing of development. So, it is missing in Bizflow."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews while BizFlow is ranked 29th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 3 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while BizFlow 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 BizFlow writes "Seamless automation for workflows, customizable and UI friendly". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas BizFlow is most compared with . See our Appian vs. BizFlow 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.