We performed a comparison between IBM Business Automation Workflow and Pega BPM 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 tool streamlines operations, especially from an operational perspective, by facilitating decision-making and ensuring timely approvals. This helps prevent delays in the approval process, where business process management adds significant value for us."
"It has integrated UI and deployment models, and it has a deep set of consultant and service provider ecosystem features."
"It helps develop applications very quickly. Once clients get used to it and familiar with the methodology, then they don't feel so locked in. It is able to add this element of agility to our clients' software development lifecycle. That is my favorite thing about it: You're not so locked in as you used to be when developing applications."
"Its interface is well-designed and user-friendly"
"IBM has spent a lot of time on the connections between the rules engine and its other product, the core BPM platform. They've really centralized the suite as one offering now."
"It performs the basic tasks that are required for the BBM solution as part of the overall integration with ECM or enterprise contact management."
"It's a flexible solution."
"The solution reduces the time to the resolution which is essential for businesses."
"The most valuable feature of Pega BPMI would be the academy courses, specifically the Product Development Network (PDN). Additionally, our organization has a dedicated Customer Engagement Team that we work closely with to achieve our goals."
"There is a feature to accelerate the development so that business analysts can directly create their user stories and assign the task to the developers."
"Powerful, full-featured business process management with excellent support"
"It is a stable product."
"Pricing is a little on the high side."
"It's a good tool for workflow automation."
"The user interface and the ease of developing the workflow for an application are valuable features."
"Scalable and stable BPM software with a powerful case management feature. It also has good workflow."
"The initial setup is actually a really complicated process."
"Integrating the solution with existing systems can be complicated and it needs careful planning and execution."
"Sometimes, we feel like we are not getting the full features of the content management capabilities."
"The setup and installation process could be made easier."
"I would definitely like to see a unified interface between the BPM side of the house and the case side of the house. Something that just seems a bit more cohesive, because right now there is sort of a disconnect between the BPM and the case side of the house. That makes it a bit of a hard sell sometimes. That is definitely first and foremost on my wish list."
"Every client is moving to the cloud. We are still a little behind with IBM, but we are catching up from my point of view."
"In terms of improvement, it could be less complex."
"From what I understand, in the next release they're actually going to combine all of this together as one integrated solution... If we could have one unified way to build a solution, that would really help."
"They need to support the solution better, at this time the company does not have enough support."
"Compared to other BPM products, the interface is somewhat complex, so the usability could be improved."
"Sometimes when we are patching some data from the database, we are getting added as a timeout."
"Pega currently is trying to add chatbots to their systems, and it's still quite immature. This part definitely needs to be improved."
"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."
"The training aspect of Pega BPM requires significant enhancement. There should be more opportunities for third-party training and engaging events, such as hackathons where individuals can share their expertise. Additionally, the training structure itself should be more organized, as I have received feedback from my colleagues in the COE that the current training approach is overwhelming and requires excessive referencing to obtain accurate information. Another area for improvement would be the user experience with regard to RPA. Simplifying the IDA for citizen developers would make it easier for them to adopt the RPA tool."
"One of the areas of this solution that could be improved would be to advance the low code features of the application itself. We would also like to use the same platform to build any application, even if it is not necessarily defined as a functionality needed by a BPM."
"The licensing cost is very high."
More IBM Business Automation Workflow Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Business Automation Workflow is ranked 13th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 22 reviews while Pega BPM is ranked 3rd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews. IBM Business Automation Workflow is rated 7.8, while Pega BPM is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM Business Automation Workflow writes "Good for case management, integration capabilities but lacks stability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pega BPM writes "Provides built-in frameworks that can be reused and reduces time and cost". IBM Business Automation Workflow is most compared with IBM BPM, Camunda, Apache Airflow, AWS Step Functions and Appian, whereas Pega BPM is most compared with ServiceNow, Camunda, Appian, IBM BPM and Microsoft Power Apps. See our IBM Business Automation Workflow vs. Pega BPM 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.
