We performed a comparison between Appian and webMethods Integration Server 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."The low code functionality and being able to get applications faster to customers or to the market are valuable."
"Form building capabilities and well thought out process modelling are key points to this product."
"The setup is easy."
"Appian is a very low code platform. It's very easy to learn and use."
"Appian's most valuable features are the quick time it takes to develop for the market. It's easy and faster than other BPM solutions."
"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."
"I find the BPM the most valuable feature."
"Technical support has been amazing overall."
"I like the stability of the webMethods Integration Server."
"A product with good API and EDI components."
"The stability is good."
"One valuable feature is that it is event-driven, so when new data is available on the source it can be quickly processed and displayed. Integration is definitely another useful feature, and B2B is one area where webMethods has its own unique thing going, whereby we can do monitoring of transactions, monitoring of client onboarding, and so on."
"The tool supports gRPC."
"High throughput and excellent scalability."
"Most of the work in our organization can be more easily done using the tool."
"Segregation of deployment for the environments is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"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."
"It would be useful if they could create an academy or forum in the future to help active users answer questions they have about the solution."
"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."
"I would like to see more features for enterprises. They would also benefit from adding documentation and training on their site."
"Authoring tool is slow to use resulted in limitations on how quickly solutions can be built."
"I wouldn't say their response time is long, but it could be quicker."
"If that had more DevOps capabilities, it would be an excellent product."
"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."
"The learning curve is a little steep at first."
"The UI for the admin console is very old. It hasn't been updated for years and is pretty much the same one that we started with. This is something that could be refreshed and made more modern."
"This solution could be improved by offering subscription based licensing."
"The price should be reduced to make it more affordable."
"Other products have been using AI and cloud enhancements, but webMethods Integration Server is still lagging in that key area."
"wM SAP Adapter User Guide - Example, like Message Broker setup was unclear, leading to issues during Testing and we had refer the internet forums to understand that there is a Message Broker Cleanup utility and that needs to be setup as well."
"When migration happens from the one release to an upgraded release from Software AG, many of the existing services are deprecated and developers have to put in effort testing and redeveloping some of the services. It would be better that upgrade releases took care to support the lower-level versions of webMethods."
"For code version control, you need to use some external software."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 58 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods.io Integration, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks and Boomi iPaaS. See our Appian vs. webMethods Integration Server report.
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.
