We performed a comparison between OpenText ProVision and SAP Signavio Process Manager 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 stability of the product is very good."
"OpenText ProVision's best feature is the capability to attach a variety of attributes and extract and analyze that information."
"All the features come as part of a standard license."
"Process management/Process governance is what we think Signavio is very good at."
"We can use workflow manager to create forms."
"The most valuable feature for me is usability."
"It is a very scalable solution."
"The solution provides data mining and AI features."
"I have done a lot of modeling over quite a number of years, and I think that the modeling capabilities in Signavio are state of the art."
"The most valuable feature for me is the collaboration point of view, where everybody has a single view, or source of truth, and everybody sees the same thing. Everyone can comment, contribute, and discuss the processes itself, which makes it easier to funnel down the most value adding comments and make the relevant changes to the processes. This leads to the next best iteration or version of your process."
"This is one of the best solutions and it is easy to implement."
"Integrating with or interfacing with other tools like data management tools would be very helpful."
"OpenText ProVision's collaboration management is quite complicated and difficult to use."
"Lacks the ability to have your own in-house developments."
"It could be more flexible from a customization point of view, where the user is able to display only whatever he needs."
"It is sometimes difficult to find the match between what is possible and what is wanted, or what is helpful with the product, so better documentation may assist in this regard."
"There is room for improvement in analytics. People don't realize it, but the world has changed in the last six to eight months. Customers want to see AI like ChatGPT and ML capabilities in all aspects of business processes and reporting."
"The reporting is too slow and there is a limit of 250 processes."
"Typically, a business process management suite would cover the whole lifecycle, from discovery to optimization and operations. This is running on the process server and providing some kind of low-code environment for developing business solutions. I think the latter part is missing, where SAP Connector comes in. Specifically, the execution of processes is missing, where you would design forms to take orders. This is typically part of some development environment for the process server to run processes from out of the models."
"There is always room for improvement is the capability of integration with other solutions."
"The tool's navigation could be improved."
"The user administration, the user-group administration, and the license models need improvement."
OpenText ProVision is ranked 35th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 3 reviews while SAP Signavio Process Manager is ranked 8th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews. OpenText ProVision is rated 6.4, while SAP Signavio Process Manager is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText ProVision writes "Good attribute attachment but problems with collaboration". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SAP Signavio Process Manager writes "Has many functionalities and is used to model processes to the former operating model". OpenText ProVision is most compared with ARIS BPA, Visio and Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, whereas SAP Signavio Process Manager is most compared with Celonis, ARIS BPA, Camunda, Visio and ADONIS. See our OpenText ProVision vs. SAP Signavio Process Manager 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.