We performed a comparison between Bizagi and OpenText 360 for SharePoint 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."It has an easy to use interface which final users accepted with much more enthusiasm than our ERP (SAP)."
"The natural notation is the best feature of Bizagi because it makes it compatible with other products."
"Very, very stable."
"The API is pretty straightforward."
"The ability to write our own code inside each activity is beneficial. Sometimes we need to create functionality that doesn't come out of the box, and this allows us to do that."
"The user logic is very easy to understand, even for people who are not engineers nor developers."
"The interface, design, and accessible user manuals to help get started using the solution are valuable features in Bizagi."
"Business process modelling and simulation."
"OpenText 360's best features are platform independence and its performance when searching large numbers of documents."
"We have manual processes, so the workflow enables us to automate a number of these processes."
"The most valuable feature of OpenText 360 for SharePoint is its performance. The solution is one of the best in the market if you search the internet."
"It's all now on cloud subscription, so you can use all the features without worrying about making the system updates patches."
"In terms of its most valuable features, this solution, in general, will provide all you need and it's very convenient to use. We can share our details to collaborative platforms. We can give access to users. It's pretty flexible."
"The product has a strong and easy integration with Teams."
"The fact that it allows for the internal sharing of information is very good."
"The most valuable features are collaboration, traceability, retention of documents, and search."
"Framework approach, which extends to reusability in tools, like Pega, for deployment management could be improved."
"They should improve the migration process between major versions, from version 9 to 10, we had to redo our implementation."
"The solution was very limited."
"Its performance needs to be improved. The main thing is that it is limited, especially in terms of the response times. When the processes become a bit large, it is very awkward to work with the Bizagi modeler. When you have already modeled but start to rearrange, it is quite a bit of an effort to change the stuff. When you rearrange lanes or have new structures, it goes rather squiggly up and down and so on, which could be improved. The visual outputs of the DIREPs of the process models are pixelated and have a bad image quality. It is a PNG or JPEG, and you cannot export it as a PDF. When you have rather large processes, you should be able to arrange them hierarchically. Currently, it is not supported. If you use sub-processes and inflate a process, suddenly the arrangement is totally different, and although you know the process, you have to look where is it now. You need a good understanding of the levels of your processes before you start in Bizagi. It can have automatic support for optimal presentation. In BPM, you should have it from the top left to the bottom right. However, in most cases, people don't know how they should arrange it. Therefore, it would be nice to have a suggestion system for different arrangements to be able to better present the process."
"Bizagi allows for automation, but it's very complicated."
"The on-premise software has some bugs."
"For the small business, this is very bad because it is still fragmented. The licensing policy should be more flexible and small company oriented. In micro-small companies, there should only be one or two. That's not the problem. Maybe it is too flexible, there are so many pieces that you need to put together. When you have a small business, it can be a little complicated, not so easy."
"Also, the tool sometimes feels not so mature when we find random deploy errors from testing to production environment."
"An area for improvement would be how the platform handles large volumes of documents. It also doesn't provide a very good, robust backup and restore capacity. In the next release, I would like the search technology to be improved."
"The platform's workflows could be more intuitive and easier to use."
"They need to come with more out of the box solutions, rather than depending on customers to develop them."
"The user interface could definitely be improved."
"I would like for there to be even more integrations in the next release and I believe that the price could go down a bit."
"Integration is an area where the solution lacks."
"The graphical user interface had to be more user-friendly. It's not as intuitive."
"They are not going for any add-ons right now. It's the same version we are still using and there is no plan of upgrading and/or creating any add-ons at all."
Bizagi is ranked 7th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 78 reviews while OpenText 360 for SharePoint is ranked 15th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 13 reviews. Bizagi is rated 8.4, while OpenText 360 for SharePoint is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Bizagi writes "A flexible, customizable solution that reduced time to market, but the UI and customer support could be better". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText 360 for SharePoint writes "A great, collaborative environment with scalability for many products". Bizagi is most compared with Camunda, Visio, Bonita, ARIS BPA and Microsoft Power Apps, whereas OpenText 360 for SharePoint is most compared with Apache Airflow, Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) Forms, IBM BPM and IBM Business Automation Workflow. See our Bizagi vs. OpenText 360 for SharePoint report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) 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.
