We performed a comparison between Appian and IBM 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."It is really simple to create a new app, and I like the data-centric aspect of the BPM tool."
"It reduces development time in half making us more efficient."
"Appian also has very flexible local integration."
"The solution has a lot of strong features for the financial industry, it is very easy to use."
"The application life cycle is very clear. I started learning it and giving some workshops to my team. Creating the users and the building is very structured. Documentation is nice and it's easy to learn."
"The initial setup is easy."
"We appreciate the drag and drop functionality and the easy to access plug and play features."
"I find the BPM the most valuable feature."
"The initial setup is straightforward and easy. I would give it a nine out of ten."
"It provides value and simplifies processes."
"The most valuable features are the integration capabilities - BPM can connect with almost any legacy or advanced system."
"By automating several tasks, we have already reduced a lot of work for the business."
"They have some quick-win programs that are designed to come in, they'll bring a developer in and they'll work with your developer to get you started. That's what we did and that worked really great. We got an understanding of the product, we got an understanding of how to deploy the product. And when we were done with that engagement, we were off and running."
"The Process Designer is good. We like how we can drag and drop and link the processes up, that works out great for us."
"Good user interface and good add option."
"Agility is the key. It gives our customers a faster way to be able to implement processes, get ownership of task, visibility into a process. The ability to modify that process, optimize that process over time, is probably the biggest benefit that they get from the software."
"The performance is pretty good, but the distortions need to be optimized in order for it to work well."
"Form creation and SAIL proprietary language still basically require programming. The claim a BA type can do everything is hogwash."
"I would like to see more features for enterprises. They would also benefit from adding documentation and training on their site."
"The tool itself is pretty good, but the main area that we struggled with was the backend. The frontend development is really good, but the backend modeling can be streamlined a little bit. There are good integrations, but tying them through the data layer and then up into the frontend could be improved a little bit. It does read/write on the data source, and you can configure it to just write or just read, but there is a little bit of work involved."
"They should provide more flexibility so designers can create a more picture perfect device."
"Authoring tool is slow to use resulted in limitations on how quickly solutions can be built."
"Lacks integration with other products."
"It is also not easy to learn. Training tutorials could be improved."
"Our developers are complaining that it's too complex to maintain."
"We need process monitoring. It is somewhat complex to monitor all the processes which work."
"I would like to see the front-end support improved because it should be fully integrated and supported."
"The constant switch between Eclipse and its web versions can be annoying and confusing."
"IBM BPM lacks openness, that is, the ability to become open for new options in terms of APIs, front-end development, and ecosystem. IBM BPM has been quite closed. One of the main improvements would be to somehow embed the rules engine into IBM BPM. Merging IBM BRMS and the rules engine with IBM BPM would be helpful. If there was some simpler way to define rules without having to put IBM BRMS on top of it, it would be good. It's something that we can get out of Camunda but not out of IBM BPM."
"It is not user-friendly."
"I would like to see a lot more case studies."
"New users will need at least six months to get comfortable with IBM BPM, at least initially. So, there's a learning curve."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 58 reviews while IBM BPM is ranked 5th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 105 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while IBM BPM is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM BPM writes "Offers good case management and its integration with process design but there's a learning curve". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, Camunda, ServiceNow, OutSystems and Bizagi, whereas IBM BPM is most compared with Camunda, Pega BPM, IBM Business Automation Workflow, Apache Airflow and ServiceNow Orchestration. See our Appian vs. IBM BPM report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors and best Process Automation 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.