We performed a comparison between Appian and Oracle 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."Technical support is helpful."
"It is really simple to create a new app, and I like the data-centric aspect of the BPM tool."
"What stands out are the speed of the product, the quick, easy development, and visual diagramming."
"It's heavy on business processing in terms of logic, process workflows, and primarily on the process design modeler. Appian is really great at that. In terms of the full stack set from a low-code platform perspective, it's definitely an eye opener since it can be deployed via mobile app and on the web as well."
"The most valuable features are the low coding and low code data."
"Appian is easy to install and set up, and it does not come out with your audit. It has accessible process orchestration and process management. With Appian, the time to market is much faster."
"Process Modeling enables creation of business process workflows. You can create complex business workflows in a visual manner, and it is also easy to debug/monitor."
"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."
"Our company is based around Oracle processes. It provides a lot of flexibility in its processes."
"We selected this solution not only for the BPM but for the entire package."
"One of the most valuable features of Oracle BPM is the workflow itself. It is quite intuitive."
"The Workspace is a full, rich application where most users can find what they want. It shows them a list of their work."
"The benefit from the tool is we can develop it quickly and easily use it for middleware services. We can publish the services so other applications can consume them. This is providing us some reusability and a type of security."
"The processor management system is quite fast and scalable. We have 10 developers using this solution and it supports 25,000 users."
"We have more than 800 distinct applications in our IT landscape. We had enough scalability and okay development cycles, and it has been enough to cover our backup operations and order management systems."
"The most valuable feature is the complete workflow through the BPM, from making it available as a generated code based on the backend, deploying it in the test environment, and then going to production."
"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."
"Appian is easy to set up, but JBoss is complex. JBoss is the application server for running Appian."
"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."
"The documentation needs to be improved."
"The graphical user interface could be easier to use. It should be simplified."
"The product’s pricing could be improved from the developers' perspective."
"The solution could improve robotic process automation."
"I would like to see more features for enterprises. They would also benefit from adding documentation and training on their site."
"The time it takes to get from deployment to production could be faster."
"Their Case Management set of features is severely lacking and should be a target for immediate improvement dealing with unpredictable processes inside of organizations."
"You have to maintain it manually."
"Pricing is an area that could use improvement."
"Overall, the engine and the UI both have to be made lighter."
"Existing APIs in the product need to be fine-tuned, made more robust and flexible for adoption."
"We have had some issues with version migration, from one version of processes to another. We would have to call Oracle Services but on a day to day, we didn't have any issues."
"Every time we roll out a new version of processes, we have to migrate to a new process. The process of this migration was not very smooth. We later decided that it would be easier for us to stop all processes, deploy a new version and then restart."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews while Oracle BPM is ranked 14th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 22 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while Oracle BPM is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle BPM writes "Stable, has a lot of features and out-of-the-box integrations, but it's heavy, and the technical support isn't good". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas Oracle BPM is most compared with Camunda, SAP Signavio Process Manager, IBM BPM, AWS Step Functions and Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) Forms. See our Appian vs. Oracle BPM report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) 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.