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."The initial setup is easy."
"It has very flexible adaptation and the ability to save and automate processes."
"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."
"Good workflow engines that bridge the gaps of processes."
"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."
"Technical support is quite responsive."
"The solution's most valuable features are the regular periodic and quarterly updates, they are very useful updates. They keep improving the solution more often, and that helps the platform or code always be up to date with the latest features."
"The tech support is quite good."
"It has developmental accelerators, which allow for virtually any customization needs which you may require."
"The solution provides extensive functionalities."
"It is easy and cheap."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"Our company is based around Oracle processes. It provides a lot of flexibility in its processes."
"The Workspace is a full, rich application where most users can find what they want. It shows them a list of their work."
"This solution has given us a quick time to market, the ability to integrate with the rest of the corporate applications, and the ability to hire talent in low-cost locations."
"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."
"My only request is that they decrease the license costs."
"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."
"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."
"The solution could improve robotic process automation."
"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."
"There should be more flexibility for the developers to choose the look and feel of the UI. They should have a better ability to design their widgets and customize them with different colors, shapes, and sizes. That is a limitation that could be improved upon."
"It has it's own built-in UI components and doesn't provide much flexibility to customize or extend those components."
"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."
"Existing APIs in the product need to be fine-tuned, made more robust and flexible for adoption."
"Their Case Management set of features is severely lacking and should be a target for immediate improvement dealing with unpredictable processes inside of organizations."
"Though Oracle BPM is a stable solution, it's very heavy, so this is one area for improvement. If Oracle can make the components of Oracle BPM lighter, and if the deployment for the solution could be easier, that would make Oracle BPM better."
"Oracle BPM could probably be improved with respect to the cost. When you are using this product, it'll be a bit costlier for the ROA. I think they should do some discounts on these products, especially for the licenses."
"Pricing is an area that could use improvement."
"It would be good if they could provide some additional connectors or an application developer environment for microservices."
"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."
"It could have easier administration. It takes time to configure and deploy."
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.