We performed a comparison between Appian and Microsoft Powerapps based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison of Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Microsoft Powerapps seems to be the superior solution. Our reviewers find that Appian’s need for integration improvement makes Microsoft Powerapps the better choice.
"There is no need to worry about vulnerabilities in the system, because Appian built a secure system."
"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."
"It reduces development time in half making us more efficient."
"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."
"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."
"Process culture is making noise inside the organization because now, everybody knows that their time is being monitored."
"Technical support is helpful."
"This is the most complete solution of its kind."
"I like the galleries, which are really powerful."
"The solution is very good. It's very full. You can do almost anything."
"The solution is excellent at figuring how to build an application in three months. It makes it very quick and easy."
"The initial setup is not complicated."
"When compared with Microsoft Power Automate, it is a bit more mature, and we're able to build things pretty rapidly."
"Time to market is most valuable because you can make apps pretty fast. It also has pretty good integration."
"It is good for using for small apps and automation on Office stuff."
"The flows are good because they can be used in a variety of situations."
"Something I would like to see improved is an SQL database connection."
"I wouldn't say their response time is long, but it could be quicker."
"What could be improved is more on the front end perspective, like the user interface and the mobile application aspect."
"We would like to have more granular control for interface styling."
"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."
"Sometimes, clients expect us to implement ERP using Appian, which is very complicated. In such cases, I don't believe that Appian is a good tool for that."
"Appian could improve their customer-facing initiatives."
"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."
"You can't add too many filters onto anything you build, otherwise, it will be very slow and it will affect your performance."
"If the price was reduced and the quality of the user interfaces was improved it would be beneficial."
"The product could be improved by making it a production application and enabling the export of apps."
"The documentation isn't great. It's only 75% of what you need to know. If you go beyond that and run into issues, it's really not going to help you."
"The pricing structure needs to be improved, the current information is confusing."
"The solution is evolving very fast and every month new features are introduced. Sometimes it's difficult to catch up with all the evolution that's happening. I had to focus on Power BI for a while and left PowerApps at the side for a couple of months and when I came back, it had changed its interface and moved components around."
"Microsoft should combine both the web and the mobile environment with all of the layers of development into one package."
"We would like to see some improvement in the cost of the solution when an organization has a more complex network structure. The advanced connectors are very expensive, which discourages our customers from implementing it."
Appian is ranked 6th in Rapid Application Development Software with 58 reviews while Microsoft Power Apps is ranked 1st in Rapid Application Development Software with 78 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Power Apps is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Power Apps writes "Low-code, low learning curve, and reduces manpower". Appian is most compared with OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow, Pega BPM and Mendix, whereas Microsoft Power Apps is most compared with Oracle Application Express (APEX), Mendix, ServiceNow, Microsoft Azure App Service and OutSystems. See our Appian vs. Microsoft Power Apps 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.