We performed a comparison between Appian and BizFlow based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Pega, Apache and others in Business Process Management (BPM)."Process culture is making noise inside the organization because now, everybody knows that their time is being monitored."
"This is the most complete solution of its kind."
"The product's most valuable feature is the low code aspect of development. We can develop an end-to-end VPN solution using a single platform."
"It's heavy on business processing in terms of logic, process workflows, and primarily on the process design modeler. Appian is really great at that. In terms of the full stack set from a low-code platform perspective, it's definitely an eye opener since it can be deployed via mobile app and on the web as well."
"The application life cycle is very clear. I started learning it and giving some workshops to my team. Creating the users and the building is very structured. Documentation is nice and it's easy to learn."
"Compared to other code tools that I've seen, Appian has a more robust rules engine"
"It has good integrations. We were looking for out-of-the-box integration with both on-prem and publicly accessible data sources. We needed integration with the cloud, OData, our REST API feed, and then on-prem passthrough to go to a SQL database or on-prem APIs through Azure local deployment, etc."
"It has very flexible adaptation and the ability to save and automate processes."
"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."
"It has it's own built-in UI components and doesn't provide much flexibility to customize or extend those components."
"The graphical user interface could be easier to use. It should be simplified."
"The biggest areas of improvement would be in facilitating team development, DevOps, and integration with typical tools used in enterprise development (Jenkins, Subversion, etc.)"
"It would be useful if they could create an academy or forum in the future to help active users answer questions they have about the solution."
"The solution could use some more tutorials to help brand new users figure out how to use the product effectively."
"Lacks integration with other products."
"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."
"We'd like improved functionality for testing new devices."
"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 25 reviews while BizFlow is ranked 29th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 1 review. Appian is rated 8.4, while BizFlow is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Stands out with its integration capabilities, but the backend modeling can be streamlined a little bit". 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 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.