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."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."
"Appian is a very low code platform. It's very easy to learn and use."
"It has very flexible adaptation and the ability to save and automate processes."
"What stands out are the speed of the product, the quick, easy development, and visual diagramming."
"The process models provide self-documenting systems."
"The solution has a lot of strong features for the financial industry, it is very easy to use."
"Technical support is helpful."
"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."
"We have automated processes with IBM BPM and DocuSign. Its valuable features include low-code, timer, etc. It makes it simple to implement the products. We generate reports using the solution."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"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."
"We have used a lot of out-of-the-box reporting on the process performance metrics. We have been able to make suggested changes to staff for this role or streamlining by eliminate some activities where people were not requiring a lot of work in the first place."
"We made the transformation to agile. Altogether with BPM, it is the total package."
"IBM BPM is both scalable and stable."
"The case management and its integration with process design are good features."
"Scalability is good. In the time that I have been there, we have added more JVMs to help with the increased workload, so it does scale."
"They should provide more flexibility so designers can create a more picture perfect device."
"Appian is easy to set up, but JBoss is complex. JBoss is the application server for running Appian."
"Something I would like to see improved is an SQL database connection."
"A point of improvement would be the SAIL forms. The built-in tool used to generate forms does not have debugging support (to view local variables as they change on live preview, and step-by-step valuation) which is a big drawback for form development. Moreover, the script language used to build SAIL forms does not support inheritance or lambda expressions (functions as arguments of other functions), which makes the code base more verbose."
"We would like to see more reduced latency. We would like to make sure that the scale-out factor will be much more as workloads come in."
"Lacks business rules management as part of the solution."
"Form creation and SAIL proprietary language still basically require programming. The claim a BA type can do everything is hogwash."
"We'd like improved functionality for testing new devices."
"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."
"Performance in the development environment space. I know that they have been taking it off the desktop version and putting on the web, and it is not 100% yet."
"The initial setup was complex."
"The debugging needs improvement. There is some confusion surrounding the debugging."
"Performance on large scale requirements could also be improved."
"There are a few areas, like triggering mechanisms, externally exposed variables, and changing its values."
"The user experience, while it has improved, should continue to improve."
"User Interface components could be further refined to enhance and extend customizations dictated by end clients."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 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.