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."It's heavy on business processing in terms of logic, process workflows, and primarily on the process design modeler. Appian is really great at that. In terms of the full stack set from a low-code platform perspective, it's definitely an eye opener since it can be deployed via mobile app and on the web as well."
"It is really simple to create a new app, and I like the data-centric aspect of the BPM tool."
"There is a version coming out every six months with performance improvements."
"The solution has a lot of strong features for the financial industry, it is very easy to use."
"The initial setup is easy."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is business automation."
"The low code functionality and being able to get applications faster to customers or to the market are valuable."
"It is fast in creating systems and connects to the database quickly."
"With the solution, I can work a normal day. I can plan my work and any other activities for days ahead."
"With GeneXus, we can create logical representations of transactions in the form of objects."
"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."
"GeneXus evolves with technology."
"The most valuable feature is that GeneXus works with several languages. It's possible to develop chatbots and other functionalities."
"The solution provides ease of programming and the speed of delivery of demands."
"The front-end features are the most valuable."
"The solution could improve robotic process automation."
"Appian could be improved by making it a strict, no-code platform with free-built process packs."
"Form creation and SAIL proprietary language still basically require programming. The claim a BA type can do everything is hogwash."
"If that had more DevOps capabilities, it would be an excellent product."
"The reporting is not as good as in similar products. They could also improve the dashboards."
"If we could calculate the amount of data that will be realized, it would help us a lot."
"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."
"Architecture of product and scalabiility issues."
"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."
"I told them to add something about Angular. They're already working on adding it."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"GeneXus's user interface has room for improvement."
"The tool needs to be tuned before being used. You need some experience to get the best out of the tool."
"The front-end with GeneXus is not as good as the back-end."
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, Camunda, ServiceNow, OutSystems 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.
