We performed a comparison between Appian and Tungsten TotalAgility based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Apache, Pega and others in Business Process Management (BPM)."We appreciate the drag and drop functionality and the easy to access plug and play features."
"With low-code, we don't need a lot of coding, and then from the plumbing perspective, there is a complete CI/CD pipeline that exists within Appian that can be leveraged for open deployment."
"Appian is a very low code platform. It's very easy to learn and use."
"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."
"There is no need to worry about vulnerabilities in the system, because Appian built a secure system."
"Since implementing we have had a faster time to solution, with fewer resources needed."
"Rapid development with low-code makes it easier to quickly get apps implemented and the time to break-even and ROI is much faster."
"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."
"Kofax TotalAgility is a great design tool for reading handwritten invoices."
"Great with recognition providing a high level of confidence."
"The tool is low code which saves you from a developer."
"Kofax TotalAgility is a single package. They provide you with OCR capabilities, BPM capabilities, and case manager features."
"It's not so complex to design what you need to."
"Data extraction and auto-classification are great features."
"One feature I like is that it makes the matrix easy for an unstructured document."
"Essentially, Kofax TotalAgility as a whole is quite nice. As of now, we've only been able to use and explore its document classification and extraction capabilities. We haven't explored and used the case management capability yet, but the scan and capture capabilities we've been using heavily and those are quite good. Our solutions are mainly around those areas of Kofax TotalAgility. We haven't explored the product a lot, but the capabilities we've explored are good."
"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."
"One room for improvement is the ease of UI UX development, like in OutSystems and Mendix."
"One of the areas that Appian is working on is to improve its UI capabilities and give more flexibility to the UI."
"Lacks business rules management as part of the solution."
"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."
"Sometimes, clients expect us to implement ERP using Appian, which is very complicated. In such cases, I don't believe that Appian is a good tool for that."
"Offline capabilities and responsive capabilities could be better. The mobility features of Appian platform are still evolving."
"I would like to see more features for enterprises. They would also benefit from adding documentation and training on their site."
"Kofax should improve its handwritten extractions."
"Table line item extraction is not possible through Quick Capture."
"They provide sufficient but not excellent technical support. Perhaps there is a point where they could use some improvement."
"Room for improvement would be better OCR functionality in terms of Arabic OCR. There should be better accuracy."
"Kofax TotalAgility could improve the OTR engine. The page OTR engine is not accurate in predicting the data properly. If you provide many features which are good for business process management without an accurate OTR engine people will not want it."
"TotalAgility needs to improve communication with ECMs or other file storage systems because TotalAgility does not have file storage. A good improvement would be to create file storage or integrate with other file storage tools that are currently available."
"The product's console version is old. It should also improve its forum."
"The one thing I would like to see more of right now: is a simplified form creation. That would be the most significant improvement I would like to see in their product."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews while Tungsten TotalAgility is ranked 4th in Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) with 22 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while Tungsten TotalAgility is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tungsten TotalAgility writes "Great with recognition and provides a high level of confidence in terms of extraction capabilities". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas Tungsten TotalAgility is most compared with ABBYY Vantage, OpenText Intelligent Capture, UiPath Document Understanding, Hyland Brainware and Camunda.
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.