We performed a comparison between Appian and GeneXus based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Low-Code Development Platforms solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The application life cycle is very clear. I started learning it and giving some workshops to my team. Creating the users and the building is very structured. Documentation is nice and it's easy to learn."
"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."
"The solution has a lot of strong features for the financial industry, it is very easy to use."
"Technical support is helpful."
"There is no need to worry about vulnerabilities in the system, because Appian built a secure system."
"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."
"What I found most valuable in Appian is that it lets you drill down on multiple things through the structure of the reporting and UI side. It's also low-code, yet it results in quick deliverables."
"It has good integrations. We were looking for out-of-the-box integration with both on-prem and publicly accessible data sources. We needed integration with the cloud, OData, our REST API feed, and then on-prem passthrough to go to a SQL database or on-prem APIs through Azure local deployment, etc."
"The solution provides ease of programming and the speed of delivery of demands."
"With GeneXus, we can create logical representations of transactions in the form of objects."
"I like the testing models, which allow me to create unit or interface tests of my programs. It helps us avoid missed deadlines because we can detect all the errors before deploying the new versions of the solution. And I also like the integration with coding managers like DevOps or Jenkins. It enables us to do versioning."
"I like that it's very compatible with other tools. The most important feature is getting the developer to focus on the project's business case. It's not about focusing on how I can command this or how I can develop a front end, or how I can work with the advantages. The developer should focus on the business case of the project. No need to focus on connecting the database to the server or connecting the server and the front end. The developer can concentrate on the views."
"With the solution, I can work a normal day. I can plan my work and any other activities for days ahead."
"It is fast in creating systems and connects to the database quickly."
"The front-end features are the most valuable."
"The most valuable feature is that GeneXus works with several languages. It's possible to develop chatbots and other functionalities."
"The biggest areas of improvement would be in facilitating team development, DevOps, and integration with typical tools used in enterprise development (Jenkins, Subversion, etc.)"
"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."
"Architecture of product and scalabiility issues."
"We'd like improved functionality for testing new devices."
"Native mobile capabilities or hybrid mobile app capabilities are very limited. Things like offline sync, offline storage, access to smartphone device features, etc. are not supported by the Appian platform yet."
"It needs better integration with our existing application ecosystem."
"What could be improved is more on the front end perspective, like the user interface and the mobile application aspect."
"It is difficult to set up the on-premise version."
"The front-end with GeneXus is not as good as the back-end."
"Documentation is always an issue. In order to develop with GeneXus, there is very little documentation. The documentation is not clear enough in order to develop a great tool."
"It's expensive for a company."
"GeneXus is a wonderful tool for the backend. It's the best in the world, but for the frontend, GeneXus needs to improve. There should be easier steps for managing various aspects, such as alerts and messages to show to the end-users."
"We would like to see more extensions and more user controls added to the front-end of this solution, in order to help developers manage the website."
"It would be better if GeneXus had a wiki. The developer needs some experience to work with the tools. It would be better if they could improve the community. If we have some problem, I open a ticket that takes us to a board, and I have to describe my issue in detail. If the tools have a general community for us to explore with some videos or some articles, I think that that may help the developer."
"The graphical interface could be improved. I also notice some performance problems on hardware that should be more than adequate. GeneXus uses a lot of RAM and other computer resources."
"It would be helpful to have additional assisted processing with training."
Appian is ranked 5th in Low-Code Development Platforms with 58 reviews while GeneXus is ranked 12th in Low-Code Development Platforms with 13 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while GeneXus is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GeneXus writes "Fast, stable, and allows us to model a workflow before developing the screens". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas GeneXus is most compared with Oracle Application Express (APEX), Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Mendix and Magic xpa Application Platform. See our Appian vs. GeneXus report.
See our list of best Low-Code Development Platforms vendors.
We monitor all Low-Code Development Platforms 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.
