We performed a comparison between Appian and Genpact Cora SeQuence 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."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."
"Even with an on-premise implementation, the scalability is still high, so it is easy to scale up."
"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."
"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."
"The technical support is excellent."
"The most valuable features of Appian are workflow management and the ease with which you can build the UI."
"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."
"Recently, we added Appian Process Mining, Appian Portals, and now Appian RPA."
"It is very stable. There is no downtime."
"The new reporting and the new dashboard features are really good."
"Something I would like to see improved is an SQL database connection."
"The solution needs more features. For example, a way to connect to our viewing database, to record, and more interface and component design."
"Lacks business rules management as part of the solution."
"They should provide more flexibility so designers can create a more picture perfect device."
"Offline capabilities and responsive capabilities could be better. The mobility features of Appian platform are still evolving."
"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."
"Appian could be improved by making it a strict, no-code platform with free-built process packs."
"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."
"The design of the interface, in general, could be improved. It could be a bit more user-friendly."
"The setup and configuration is complex."
Earn 20 points
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 58 reviews while Genpact Cora SeQuence is ranked 39th in Business Process Management (BPM). Appian is rated 8.4, while Genpact Cora SeQuence 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 Genpact Cora SeQuence writes "It is a very stable and scalable product without downtime". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas Genpact Cora SeQuence is most compared with Tungsten TotalAgility and Hubble. See our Appian vs. Genpact Cora SeQuence 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.