We performed a comparison between Appian and AuraQuantic 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."The solution's most valuable features are the regular periodic and quarterly updates, they are very useful updates. They keep improving the solution more often, and that helps the platform or code always be up to date with the latest features."
"The most valuable features of Appian are workflow management and the ease with which you can build the UI."
"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."
"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."
"The tool is very flexible."
"It's a stable product."
"The initial setup was seamless. We didn't run into any hardships at all."
"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."
"AuraPortal has the best price for its process."
"AuraQuantic's most valuable features are the zero code, user-friendly mode, and integration."
"It's a low-code application."
"AuraPortal is very user-friendly and flexible."
"It is difficult to set up the on-premise version."
"Form creation and SAIL proprietary language still basically require programming. The claim a BA type can do everything is hogwash."
"My only request is that they decrease the license costs."
"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."
"What could be improved is more on the front end perspective, like the user interface and the mobile application aspect."
"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."
"One room for improvement is the ease of UI UX development, like in OutSystems and Mendix."
"Appian could be improved by making it a strict, no-code platform with free-built process packs."
"AuraQuantic's price could be improved."
"More documentation and the ability to extract different reports about different relations in the objects I use will help."
"We'd like it more animated. It would be useful if we could integrate GIFs, for example."
"One thing that could be improved would be for it to be deployed in a shorter time."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 58 reviews while AuraQuantic is ranked 19th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 6 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while AuraQuantic is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of AuraQuantic writes "Responsive support, easy to use, and reliable". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas AuraQuantic is most compared with Camunda and Bizagi. See our Appian vs. AuraQuantic report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors, best Process Automation vendors, and best Low-Code Development Platforms 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.