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 most valuable features are the low coding and low code data."
"Another advantage of this tool is its reports and records. You can maintain dashboards, layouts. If you with a Java solution, it takes six months time. If you use this tool, you can finish in one or one and a half months' time."
"It is really simple to create a new app, and I like the data-centric aspect of the BPM tool."
"Form building capabilities and well thought out process modelling are key points to this product."
"The agile manner that we require to create our workflows. This is probably the most critical part of our solution and the time it takes to start processing the solution."
"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."
"Appian helps you do a lot of things. It's easy to configure and build an application platform, and it offers a lot of features that you find in an RPA solution. It's flexible so you can reuse it for a variety of use cases."
"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."
"Our company is based around Oracle processes. It provides a lot of flexibility in its processes."
"One of the most valuable features is its user-friendly API, which simplifies the implementation of workflows, such as managing inbox tasks for specific users within BPM profiles."
"The Workspace is a full, rich application where most users can find what they want. It shows them a list of their work."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"What I found most valuable in Oracle BPM is that it has a lot of out-of-the-box integrations. The solution also provides a lot of adapters which is very helpful."
"We selected this solution not only for the BPM but for the entire package."
"The default Workspace does not meet all our needs and sometimes you need to create your own custom Workspace."
"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 performance is pretty good, but the distortions need to be optimized in order for it to work well."
"The solution needs more features. For example, a way to connect to our viewing database, to record, and more interface and component design."
"The tool itself is pretty good, but the main area that we struggled with was the backend. The frontend development is really good, but the backend modeling can be streamlined a little bit. There are good integrations, but tying them through the data layer and then up into the frontend could be improved a little bit. It does read/write on the data source, and you can configure it to just write or just read, but there is a little bit of work involved."
"Appian could be improved by making it a strict, no-code platform with free-built process packs."
"The ability of the interface to load automatic data is not great."
"It has it's own built-in UI components and doesn't provide much flexibility to customize or extend those components."
"Occasionally, certain pre-made modules may not be necessary and customers may desire greater customization options. Instead of being limited to pre-designed features, they may prefer a more flexible version that allows for greater customization."
"We have clients that want to use Office 365, Microsoft Analytics, and Power Apps. Appian just isn't the same as using something specifically designed to cater to the Microsoft Suite."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing structure."
"The solution needs to offer better integration with third-party systems."
"Pricing is an area that could use improvement."
"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."
"The product must reduce its cost."
"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."
"Overall, the engine and the UI both have to be made lighter."
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.