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."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."
"It is really simple to create a new app, and I like the data-centric aspect of the BPM tool."
"The most valuable features are the low coding and low code data."
"With low-code, we don't need a lot of coding, and then from the plumbing perspective, there is a complete CI/CD pipeline that exists within Appian that can be leveraged for open deployment."
"Appian has many valuable features, the first being the ease of development—rapid development. Second, the process of learning the product and tool is faster when compared to its peers in the market. It's closer to low-code, and while it's still not very easy, it's more low-code than other products in the industry. Appian has a good user interface, a seamless model user interface, which comes without additional coding. It can also integrate with multiple systems."
"Good workflow engines that bridge the gaps of processes."
"Technical support is quite responsive."
"The most valuable features of Appian are workflow management and the ease with which you can build the UI."
"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."
"Lacks integration with other products."
"I would like to see more complete university tools. For example, with UiPath, I have had a good experience related to a free course in order to provide some users some different levels of knowledge. This extra training helps users not only use the solution but to develop further within the tool."
"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."
"Appian could improve their customer-facing initiatives."
"Native mobile capabilities or hybrid mobile app capabilities are very limited. Things like offline sync, offline storage, access to smartphone device features, etc. are not supported by the Appian platform yet."
"One room for improvement is the ease of UI UX development, like in OutSystems and Mendix."
"Offline capabilities and responsive capabilities could be better. The mobility features of Appian platform are still evolving."
"The ability of the interface to load automatic data is not great."
"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 56 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.