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."Appian also has very flexible local integration."
"The agile manner that we require to create our workflows. This is probably the most critical part of our solution and the time it takes to start processing the solution."
"Another advantage of this tool is its reports and records. You can maintain dashboards, layouts. If you with a Java solution, it takes six months time. If you use this tool, you can finish in one or one and a half months' time."
"The setup is easy."
"Form building capabilities and well thought out process modelling are key points to this product."
"There is no need to worry about vulnerabilities in the system, because Appian built a secure system."
"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."
"What stands out are the speed of the product, the quick, easy development, and visual diagramming."
"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."
"While Appian is generally flexible, it's rigid in some ways. It takes longer to do something that isn't available out of the box."
"The solution needs more features. For example, a way to connect to our viewing database, to record, and more interface and component design."
"Form creation and SAIL proprietary language still basically require programming. The claim a BA type can do everything is hogwash."
"There are four areas I believe Appian could improve in. The first is a seamless contact center integration. Appian does not have a contact center feature. The second is advanced features in RPA. The third would be chatbot and email bot integration—while Appian comes with chatbot and email bot, it's not as mature as it should be, compared to the competition. The fourth area would be next best action, since there is not much of this sort of feature in Appian. These are all features which competitors' products have, and in a mature manner, whereas Appian lacks on these four areas. I see customers who are moving from Appian to Pega because these features are not in Appian."
"It is difficult to set up the on-premise version."
"They should provide more flexibility so designers can create a more picture perfect device."
"Appian could improve their customer-facing initiatives."
"There could be a scope of enhancement for capturing the variety of use cases."
"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.