We performed a comparison between Appian and Hyland OnBase 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."
"There is no need to worry about vulnerabilities in the system, because Appian built a secure system."
"It's a stable product."
"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."
"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."
"Process culture is making noise inside the organization because now, everybody knows that their time is being monitored."
"I find the BPM the most valuable feature."
"Call Web Service Smart Service - Web service integrations with other systems are super simple and fast to create, supported by low code menus."
"We found the setup process to be okay since they do offer a troubleshooting guide."
"The most valuable features are that it's very secure and provides audit trails for our documents."
"The solution is very developed and we are not taking full advantage of its functionalities."
"The retention module is one of the most valuable features. Whatever we scan onto the system can be identified and we are notified when the records are due to be disposed."
"OnBase is a remarkable tool. It is a well-done product. Hyland has a lot of experience in building it and looking for new things for clients in terms of functionalities. It has amazing stability, and it can grow horizontally and vertically. It is built for growth. Their technical support is also quite good and available throughout the year."
"I like the cloud and its integrability."
"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."
"Offline capabilities and responsive capabilities could be better. The mobility features of Appian platform are still evolving."
"I wouldn't say their response time is long, but it could be quicker."
"Appian could be improved by making it a strict, no-code platform with free-built process packs."
"Even though the company has made great improvements in online documentation, featuring rich material which includes case studies of real-life use cases, the material could definitely be better in quality and coverage of use cases."
"I would like to see more features for enterprises. They would also benefit from adding documentation and training on their site."
"The graphical user interface could be easier to use. It should be simplified."
"If we could calculate the amount of data that will be realized, it would help us a lot."
"For user experience, they would have to do more with the interface. It is not easy to work with and is a little messy. It is getting better, but it is not yet good enough. Other products are comparatively doing better in terms of the user interface. I have been hearing about Box, which is very easy to use and learn for the users. OnBase has to work on this aspect. It should have BPM capabilities. We compete with tools that provide the BPM feature and support those standards. They can do better in terms of the pricing model. It is a really expensive tool in Latin America. They should have different prices for different regions."
"We are struggling with duplicates and would like to have OCR functionality when using this solution."
"We need to troubleshoot why our reports didn't get downloaded in a day. There is a workflow feature which powerful but also complicated."
"The look and feel could be better. The integration with the user could be better. It could also be more user-friendly."
"An area for improvement would be the training - getting our people up to speed on how to use it required more training than we expected due to the complexity of the solution."
"The dashboards do have some room for improvement as compared to the other vendors which are there in the market."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews while Hyland OnBase is ranked 24th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 8 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while Hyland OnBase 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 Hyland OnBase writes "Stable content and workflow management solution with a valuable retention module". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas Hyland OnBase is most compared with Alfresco, SharePoint, OpenText Documentum, OpenText Extended ECM and IBM FileNet. See our Appian vs. Hyland OnBase report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) 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.