We performed a comparison between OpenText MBPM 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."Not just the solution's automation capabilities, but we like everything about it since we are more of a system integrator."
"Case Management, as well as Workflow Automation, are Pega's most powerful capabilities."
"The solution offers excellent workflows."
"The most valuable features are case management and integration services."
"Pega BPM has a full suite for any enterprise. It is a process orchestration platform. It has detailed features for case management and workflows."
"The solution provides us with a very good dashboard."
"The solution is operating well overall."
"The tool reduces our costs."
"Pega BPM offers a lot of out-of-the-box functionalities."
"The user interface could be better in OpenText MBPM."
"There are shortcomings in the solution's support and documentation part."
"Pega BPM can improve product management, case management, omnichannel, CDH, and the customer data hub. All the major domains can improve. Additionally, more AI functionality and proper integrations with Pega RPA would be helpful."
"Pega should work on redefining their model and creating a demand for their skills."
"The UI part needs improvement."
"It should have integration with non-relational databases. A lot of databases are non-relational, and as a company, we are planning to move to NoSQL or open-source databases. It would be good if we are able to install and use Pega on a NoSQL database. They can also try to tailor or organize the company a bit differently and go more towards the microservice concept. I would like Pega to develop machine learning and intelligent AI algorithms. They have a good foundation in terms of the model and the stuff that we are using for some customers, and it will be good to onboard as many machine learning algorithms as possible."
"The way the IDE works with the chatbox and the taxonomy imports could be a little smoother."
"Reporting is not so clear and not so great. We really struggle to get the right reporting. When we need reporting based on the content of the tickets, we are not able to get it. The MIS reporting is not great. That's one of the reasons why we are switching to ServiceNow. Its compatibility with the higher versions of Internet Explorer should be improved. It really works well in Mozilla Firefox or any other browser, but when it comes to Microsoft Edge or Internet Explorer, sometimes, the layout gets disturbed. The positioning of the buttons changes, and there is some distortion in the layout. I am not sure whether it is our configuration problem or Pega's, but when it is working in Mozilla Firefox, it should also work in Microsoft Edge or Internet Explorer."
"The unit testing needs to improve, as well as the user interface."
"The workflow automation can be slow, so there is room for improvement there."
OpenText MBPM is ranked 41st in Business Process Management (BPM) with 2 reviews while Pega BPM is ranked 3rd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews. OpenText MBPM is rated 7.0, while Pega BPM is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText MBPM writes " A solution offering good automation capabilities while needing to improve its support and documentation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pega BPM writes "Provides built-in frameworks that can be reused and reduces time and cost". OpenText MBPM is most compared with Camunda and webMethods Integration Server, whereas Pega BPM is most compared with ServiceNow, Camunda, Appian, IBM BPM and Microsoft Power Apps. See our OpenText MBPM 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.