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."In terms of interface, it's very good. In terms of infrastructure, it's amazing and already using multiple tools behind the scenes. It's a low-code platform, so it's very easy to implement."
"Appian's most valuable feature is that we can create end-to-end process workflows with minimum turnaround."
"Appian's most valuable features are the quick time it takes to develop for the market. It's easy and faster than other BPM solutions."
"It provides us with real-time data on all connected systems in terms of how they're integrated with each other and how they are performing in a workflow manner."
"The solution has a lot of strong features for the financial industry, it is very easy to use."
"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."
"Technical support is helpful."
"Low code development: Code can be developed pretty quickly which leads to less turnaround time for automation of business processes."
"Some of the features that I like the most are team management and process performance. They are both very useful and very powerful with regard to the workflow."
"It is transparent to business users because it is mostly picture based modelling."
"The installation was straightforward."
"IBM BPM's most valuable features are its speed in implementing and providing any changes."
"The reach with Integration Adapters and support for adding custom Java code are valuable features."
"The process creation."
"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."
"It's a solid product. It covers most of the pain points for clients."
"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 of the areas that Appian is working on is to improve its UI capabilities and give more flexibility to the UI."
"The documentation needs to be improved."
"There could be a scope of enhancement for capturing the variety of use cases."
"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."
"The reporting is not as good as in similar products. They could also improve the dashboards."
"The solution could use some more tutorials to help brand new users figure out how to use the product effectively."
"Appian could include other applications that we could reuse for other customers, CRM for example."
"The coaches and the user interface are the areas that can be improved a lot. It is good in terms of data processing, but the UI, scripting, and coaches are not very user-friendly and developer-friendly. Performance is always an issue. The scripting and the pattern that it uses are very tedious for new developers to understand, and it takes time to master it in depth. When comparing IBM BPM with IBM APN, a lot of things are provided out of the box in IBM APN. We don't have to write code or a Java connector to make a functionality work. It would be very helpful and time-saving for developers if IBM BPM is improved in this area to provide many functionalities or drag-and-drop options so that the developers don't have to write the code."
"The interface is limited and should improve in the future."
"I would like to see the front-end support improved because it should be fully integrated and supported."
"This is technology, and there's always room for improvement. It would be better to have a single solution. Trying to have an overview in terms of this solution brings together the concepts of BPM processes, customer journeys, and an automation part for KPIs. All of this working together and coming up with a single solution with privacy is more commercial than anything else."
"UI is an area with a shortcoming that needs improvement."
"Where it can be improved is Integration. I think that the direction that IBM is taking now, to have something that is much more integrated, that can be seen as one single solution, is clearly the right way."
"There is room for improvement in the stability."
"It needs more customization. We like to customize the screens to show more things related to our company."
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.