We performed a comparison between Appian and IBM BPM 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."It has created executable requirements and speeds up the SDLC process greatly."
"Process culture is making noise inside the organization because now, everybody knows that their time is being monitored."
"Form building capabilities and well thought out process modelling are key points to this product."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is business automation."
"Recently, we added Appian Process Mining, Appian Portals, and now Appian RPA."
"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."
"Appian also has very flexible local integration."
"The Process Designer is good. We like how we can drag and drop and link the processes up, that works out great for us."
"We use it for automating certain processes which previously took a lot of time for agents to set up different products for customers. They would have to enter a lot of different systems. This has now mostly been automated."
"IBM BPM is easy to deploy."
"Our customers use the solution as a workflow platform to manage their processes."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"IBM BPM's best features include document sharing, management document creation, widget and barcode creation, and integration."
"This tool is very useful when it comes to enterprise-grade automation and governmental processes for the security aspects, performance, and reliability."
"One of the most notable things is how you can develop use cases with the customers, internal customers, but directly within. The software process model that BPM supports is really exciting in that aspect."
"The performance is pretty good, but the distortions need to be optimized in order for it to work well."
"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."
"Architecture of product and scalabiility issues."
"What could be improved is more on the front end perspective, like the user interface and the mobile application aspect."
"Appian has a few areas for improvement, which my organization raised with the Appian team. One is the Excel output which is limited to fifty columns when it should be up to two hundred or three hundred columns."
"Form creation and SAIL proprietary language still basically require programming. The claim a BA type can do everything is hogwash."
"If that had more DevOps capabilities, it would be an excellent product."
"The reporting is not as good as in similar products. They could also improve the dashboards."
"It is a rather thick stack because you have to have WebSphere skills, IBM BPM skills, and an understanding of how the product runs on WebSphere. A lot of this will start to get a lot easier as they put it in containers, which will allow the platform to manage itself in some regards."
"There is a lot of room for improvement of the dashboards."
"The constant switch between Eclipse and its web versions can be annoying and confusing."
"The people working on the front desk are having some problem with managing the documentation. For instance, they get a picture, and if the picture comes rotated 90 degrees, together with a picture that is not rotated, they have some problems dealing with that, technically. There are some minor aspects that on the usability side that are still lacking. That has to do with FileNet, too, I'm talking about the suite together."
"I would like IBM to consider including AI-enabled process mining, robotic process automation, and very good OCR capabilities from the computer vision side."
"I hope IBM uses something from IBM Content Navigator to make the interface easier to navigate."
"Except for the Lucene the index - we had a couple of issues in the Process Portal where the Lucene index went out of sync, and we had to work at least 15 - 20 hours to have it back in sync with the database."
"One of the things that we are looking at is cognitive learning. IBM has another product called IBM RPA, I think, which is doing some of that stuff. We would like to see more of that with respect to cognitive learning and AI put back into the process engine to help."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 25 reviews while IBM BPM is ranked 6th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 26 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while IBM BPM is rated 7.8. 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 IBM BPM writes "A reasonably priced tool that is helpful for the automation of business processes ". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Bizagi, whereas IBM BPM is most compared with Camunda, IBM Business Automation Workflow, Pega BPM, Apache Airflow and AWS Step Functions. See our Appian vs. IBM BPM report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors and best Process Automation 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.