We performed a comparison between Appian 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: Appian comes out ahead in this comparison. Pega BPM users say it is not robust enough. In contrast, Appian is a high-performing, reliable product.
"The most valuable features are the low coding and low code data."
"Process culture is making noise inside the organization because now, everybody knows that their time is being monitored."
"Since implementing we have had a faster time to solution, with fewer resources needed."
"With low-code, we don't need a lot of coding, and then from the plumbing perspective, there is a complete CI/CD pipeline that exists within Appian that can be leveraged for open deployment."
"We appreciate the drag and drop functionality and the easy to access plug and play features."
"Compared to other code tools that I've seen, Appian has a more robust rules engine"
"What stands out are the speed of the product, the quick, easy development, and visual diagramming."
"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."
"Application development is very rapid. A lot of code gets reused while building the applications, which is something we highly appreciate."
"The solution is operating well overall."
"When our clients automate the KYC and onboarding processes, they can reduce their manual force and then deploy them in much better tasks rather than the mundane activities of selecting forms and gathering information."
"In general, we use web services to integrate this solution with our other tools. It is the main approach we use with this solution and it integrates with all tools that we need. If you want to integrate with other solutions such ThreatFire or similar, it is possible as well."
"The interface is quite simple and easy to use, even for beginners."
"The workflow designing and integration are the most valuable features. Also, the UI design was pretty easy."
"The most valuable feature of Pega BPM is its architecture."
"The most important features of Pega BPM are case management and claims management, and soon they'll also be offering claims processing. I also love Pega BPM in terms of performance. It's also one of the very few user-friendly solutions in the market. It may take some time to learn Pega BPM, but once you get a proper handle on it, tracking and managing processes become very easy anytime, anywhere. Pega BPM also has very good documentation you can use to learn the solution. Pega has a community portal that has complete information and explanations, and if you're facing a challenge, you can post your challenge on the community portal and get a resolution at the same time."
"What could be improved is more on the front end perspective, like the user interface and the mobile application aspect."
"It would be nice if you could create your own customized apps when the business needed them."
"The solution could use some more tutorials to help brand new users figure out how to use the product effectively."
"Something I would like to see improved is an SQL database connection."
"Form creation and SAIL proprietary language still basically require programming. The claim a BA type can do everything is hogwash."
"I would like to see more features for enterprises. They would also benefit from adding documentation and training on their site."
"The solution could improve by being more responsive when dealing with large quantities of data. Additionally, they can make the decision or rules engine better. It cannot handle too many rules or too many decisions at once."
"If we could calculate the amount of data that will be realized, it would help us a lot."
"Business specific functionality is needed."
"It is scalable, but it also interacts with a lot of other systems. I think they thought that the interface to other systems, legacy systems, was its strength, but when problems do occur, quickly diagnosing those problems has been a challenge."
"This is an expensive solution."
"I believe they simplify the application development. It is still complex. The learning is not easy, it takes time compared to other products on the market."
"Its implementation in the public sector was a bit complex."
"It needs more integration with other platforms."
"Sometimes when we are patching some data from the database, we are getting added as a timeout."
"If it could also be integrated with robotics, it could help with a lot of things, even if we don't have APIs, we could still talk to other applications. If it could invoke a bot, for example."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 58 reviews while Pega BPM is ranked 3rd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while Pega BPM is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pega BPM writes "Provides built-in frameworks that can be reused and reduces time and cost". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Mendix, whereas Pega BPM is most compared with ServiceNow, Camunda, Microsoft Power Apps, IBM BPM and OutSystems. See our Appian vs. Pega BPM report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors, best Process Automation vendors, and best Rapid Application Development Software 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.