We performed a comparison between Appian and Unqork based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Oracle, OutSystems and others in Rapid Application Development Software."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."
"Appian helps you do a lot of things. It's easy to configure and build an application platform, and it offers a lot of features that you find in an RPA solution. It's flexible so you can reuse it for a variety of use cases."
"Rapid development with low-code makes it easier to quickly get apps implemented and the time to break-even and ROI is much faster."
"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."
"Technical support is helpful."
"Another advantage of this tool is its reports and records. You can maintain dashboards, layouts. If you with a Java solution, it takes six months time. If you use this tool, you can finish in one or one and a half months' time."
"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."
"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."
"Unqork UI behaves consistently across devices and seamlessly adapts to various form factors."
"There are some restrictions with respect to using external components within Appian. So, for example, if we do not have a particular feature available, there's a long cycle of getting approvals and all of that. That does not offer flexibility, which definitely can be improved on."
"Appian has a few areas for improvement, which my organization raised with the Appian team. One is the Excel output which is limited to fifty columns when it should be up to two hundred or three hundred columns."
"It needs better integration with our existing application ecosystem."
"It has it's own built-in UI components and doesn't provide much flexibility to customize or extend those components."
"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."
"Appian is easy to set up, but JBoss is complex. JBoss is the application server for running Appian."
"The solution needs more features. For example, a way to connect to our viewing database, to record, and more interface and component design."
"Authoring tool is slow to use resulted in limitations on how quickly solutions can be built."
"The addition of Azure and Google Cloud alongside AWS would allow our deployment options to better align with enterprise strategic cloud choices outside just Amazon."
Appian is ranked 6th in Rapid Application Development Software with 58 reviews while Unqork is ranked 25th in Rapid Application Development Software with 1 review. Appian is rated 8.4, while Unqork is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Unqork writes "Great UI and out-of-the-box integrations, but needs expanded cloud platform support". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, Camunda, ServiceNow, OutSystems and Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) Forms, whereas Unqork is most compared with Pega BPM, Microsoft Power Apps, Salesforce Platform, OutSystems and ServiceNow Now Platform.
See our list of best Rapid Application Development Software 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.