We performed a comparison between Microsoft Power Apps and Pega BPM based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Pega BPM comes out on top in this comparison. It has impressive automotion features, is stable, and scales easily. In contrast, some Power Apps users encounter a sluggish performance when working with heavy volumes of data.
"The initial setup is not complicated."
"The most valuable features are low-code and fast development."
"The solution is easy to use and map."
"Microsoft PowerApps's most valuable features we found are that it's very similar to the other Microsoft products, you can do the basic automation quite quickly. The interface is similar to the other Microsoft products which makes it easy to navigate around because we are used to Microsoft products."
"It is good for using for small apps and automation on Office stuff."
"I have found the technical support to be helpful."
"In Microsoft PowerApps the most valuable features are the fully customizable design that we can control everything that we would like to control. For example, the integration between Microsoft and third-party services through pre-built connectors, and the functionality to create custom connectors."
"I like the containerization of Azure."
"Allowed us to develop and quickly release with confidence using cloud technologies."
"The most valuable features are case management and integration services."
"The solution is operating well overall."
"The robotic process automation has increased the confidence of business users."
"The best part of Pega, for me, is that they let you reuse a lot of the aspects in the product."
"The solution has very helpful technical support."
"Application development is very rapid. A lot of code gets reused while building the applications, which is something we highly appreciate."
"The initial setup is pretty straightforward."
"Microsoft PowerApps can be more costly for small teams or organizations."
"The connectors are the main components that reference the data sources, and these need to be improved."
"When we talk of integrating with external applications, that's one area where, even today, I had to loop in my code developers. If this area can be streamlined so that my techno-functional consultants, who are on-site, can immediately start working on something without the assistance of developers, that would be ideal."
"The solution needs a bit more refinement in general."
"The user interface is pretty good, although it is a little bit clunky and can be improved."
"The pricing structure needs to be improved, the current information is confusing."
"You can't add too many filters onto anything you build, otherwise, it will be very slow and it will affect your performance."
"The availability of templates needs to be improved. I understand that the ecosystem around it is still developing, but we need more templates. I would like the entire ecosystem around it to improve. I would recommend adding AI components. Even though we can always connect to Azure for AI components, they should slowly start looking at adding some AI components to PowerApps so that out-of-the-box learning can be applied to process flows. Salesforce has the Einstein layer that works along with license platforms. PowerApps should also have something similar."
"The pricing model needs to be improved. Right now, it's too expensive."
"The local development approach is good in Pega, however, cost-wise, it's getting expensive. That needs to be addressed."
"The training aspect of Pega BPM requires significant enhancement. There should be more opportunities for third-party training and engaging events, such as hackathons where individuals can share their expertise. Additionally, the training structure itself should be more organized, as I have received feedback from my colleagues in the COE that the current training approach is overwhelming and requires excessive referencing to obtain accurate information. Another area for improvement would be the user experience with regard to RPA. Simplifying the IDA for citizen developers would make it easier for them to adopt the RPA tool."
"Lack of stronger cloud support is somewhat inconvenient for users and implementation."
"Reporting is not so clear and not so great. We really struggle to get the right reporting. When we need reporting based on the content of the tickets, we are not able to get it. The MIS reporting is not great. That's one of the reasons why we are switching to ServiceNow. Its compatibility with the higher versions of Internet Explorer should be improved. It really works well in Mozilla Firefox or any other browser, but when it comes to Microsoft Edge or Internet Explorer, sometimes, the layout gets disturbed. The positioning of the buttons changes, and there is some distortion in the layout. I am not sure whether it is our configuration problem or Pega's, but when it is working in Mozilla Firefox, it should also work in Microsoft Edge or Internet Explorer."
"The cost of licensing could be improved."
"Pega's technical support could be better."
"We need more light retail BPM tools within the Pega system. However, Pega is mostly for big companies."
Microsoft Power Apps is ranked 1st in Rapid Application Development Software with 77 reviews while Pega BPM is ranked 7th in Rapid Application Development Software with 55 reviews. Microsoft Power Apps is rated 7.8, while Pega BPM is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft Power Apps writes "Low-code, low learning curve, and reduces manpower". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pega BPM writes "Low code with great APIs and good flexibility". Microsoft Power Apps is most compared with Oracle Application Express (APEX), Mendix, ServiceNow, Appian and QuickBase, whereas Pega BPM is most compared with ServiceNow, Camunda, Appian, IBM BPM and OutSystems. See our Microsoft Power Apps vs. Pega BPM report.
See our list of best Rapid Application Development Software vendors and best Low-Code Development Platforms vendors.
We monitor all Rapid Application Development Software 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.