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."The most valuable feature is business automation."
"I find the BPM the most valuable feature."
"Low code development: Code can be developed pretty quickly which leads to less turnaround time for automation of business processes."
"Good workflow engines that bridge the gaps of processes."
"Write to Data Store Entity - Saving data in SQL databases is done easily using entities. Entities (CDTs in Appian terminology) define relationships and target schema tables via XSD files."
"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."
"The setup is easy."
"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."
"Previously, our company's business automation process was slow. IBM BPM's schedule and response functionalities are excellent...There are countless use cases in which IBM BPM proves to be a valuable tool for my clients."
"IBM BPM should become cloud-native. It should also add a cloud deployment feature."
"It helps improve your process through continual measurement."
"Initially, the process architecture studio was very helpful and it was compliant with BPMN standards."
"The solution is stable."
"Agility is the key. It gives our customers a faster way to be able to implement processes, get ownership of task, visibility into a process. The ability to modify that process, optimize that process over time, is probably the biggest benefit that they get from the software."
"The installation was straightforward."
"There are a lot of things that you get out-of-the-box: Timers and so on, which took a lot of effort and code before."
"The solution needs more features. For example, a way to connect to our viewing database, to record, and more interface and component design."
"Architecture of product and scalabiility issues."
"The solution could improve robotic process automation."
"The solution could improve by being more responsive when dealing with large quantities of data. Additionally, they can make the decision or rules engine better. It cannot handle too many rules or too many decisions at once."
"There could be a scope of enhancement for capturing the variety of use cases."
"Something I would like to see improved is an SQL database connection."
"The biggest areas of improvement would be in facilitating team development, DevOps, and integration with typical tools used in enterprise development (Jenkins, Subversion, etc.)"
"The reporting is not as good as in similar products. They could also improve the dashboards."
"Performance on large scale requirements could also be improved."
"They don't have a mechanism to achieve processes, data sources, and data."
"When you have to integrate files for enterprise applications."
"Stability wavers. We have some opportunities for improvement in this space, especially as we approach our target volume of a million transactions a day. It is tough, because it is not necessarily the product. It is more around the platform and infrastructure to support it, so the connectivity to the database, web sessions, and reverse proxies in front of that."
"The cost of the solution has room for improvement."
"Our developers are complaining that it's too complex to maintain."
"Needs better reporting. I do not think that we are fully taking advantage of what it already has yet."
"I would like it more documentation during the design phase."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 56 reviews while IBM BPM is ranked 5th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 105 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while IBM BPM is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM BPM writes "Offers good case management and its integration with process design but there's a learning curve". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Bizagi, whereas IBM BPM is most compared with Camunda, Pega BPM, IBM Business Automation Workflow, 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.