Compare Adobe ColdFusion vs. Appian

Adobe ColdFusion is ranked 15th in Rapid Application Development Software with 2 reviews while Appian is ranked 7th in Rapid Application Development Software with 6 reviews. Adobe ColdFusion is rated 9.0, while Appian is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Adobe ColdFusion writes "A mature, reliable, consistent platform, which offers outstanding customer service and product support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Appian writes "Low-code characteristics lead to fast development cycles". Adobe ColdFusion is most compared with Microsoft Azure App Service, OutSystems and Oracle Application Express (APEX), whereas Appian is most compared with Pega BPM, ServiceNow and Camunda BPM. See our Adobe ColdFusion vs. Appian report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Adobe ColdFusion Logo
1,150 views|520 comparisons
Appian Logo
12,411 views|8,980 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Adobe ColdFusion vs. Appian and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
408,154 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
Apart from providing a mature, reliable, consistent platform, Adobe also offers outstanding customer service and product support.No need to import libraries from outside the environment.

Read more »

Form building capabilities and well thought out process modelling are key points to this product.The process models provide self-documenting systems.Since implementing we have had a faster time to solution, with fewer resources needed.Process culture is making noise inside the organization because now, everybody knows that their time is being monitored.Another advantage of this tool is its reports and records. You can maintain dashboards, layouts. If you with a Java solution, it takes six months time. If you use this tool, you can finish in one or one and a half months' time.There is a version coming out every six months with performance improvements.Call Web Service Smart Service - Web service integrations with other systems are super simple and fast to create, supported by low code menus.Write to Data Store Entity - Saving data in SQL databases is done easily using entities. Entities (CDTs in Appian terminology) define relationships and target schema tables via XSD files.

Read more »

Cons
Need to be able to Be able to inject Python, Java, Groovy, or PHP code into a CFML page.

Read more »

Authoring tool is slow to use resulted in limitations on how quickly solutions can be built.My only request is that they decrease the license costs.We would like to have more granular control for interface styling.The documentation needs to be improved.Even though the company has made great improvements in online documentation, featuring rich material which includes case studies of real-life use cases, the material could definitely be better in quality and coverage of use cases.A point of improvement would be the SAIL forms. The built-in tool used to generate forms does not have debugging support (to view local variables as they change on live preview, and step-by-step valuation) which is a big drawback for form development. Moreover, the script language used to build SAIL forms does not support inheritance or lambda expressions (functions as arguments of other functions), which makes the code base more verbose.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
If you really want to save money, there is a free open source CFML engine (former Railo, now Lucee) out there.

Read more »

The cost depends on the number of users, although I recommend taking an unlimited license.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Rapid Application Development Software solutions are best for your needs.
408,154 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
Views
1,150
Comparisons
520
Reviews
2
Average Words per Review
530
Avg. Rating
9.0
Views
12,411
Comparisons
8,980
Reviews
6
Average Words per Review
408
Avg. Rating
8.2
Top Comparisons
Compared 14% of the time.
Compared 20% of the time.
Compared 18% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Also Known As
Appian BPM, Appian AnyWhere, Appian Enterprise BPMS
Learn
Adobe
Appian
Overview

Get a tried and tested application server that simplifies complex coding tasks. Rapidly develop robust, scalable, secure applications. Use the all-new API Manager to implement your API strategy faster, and get unprecedented control over PDF generation and manipulation

With Appian, your organization can rapidly build, deploy, use, and scale problem-solving apps. And with the flexibility of on-premises and cloud portability, you'll always address your unique challenges the way that makes the most sense for you.
Offer
Learn more about Adobe ColdFusion
Learn more about Appian
Sample Customers
Inspirus, Promisan, Webapper, Giva, Frontech Solutions Inc, Digicon, ITX Corp, Wall Street Magnate, SimulTV, ten24 Digital Solutions, Prospective Medical Data International Inc, Alcatel-LucentHansard Global plc, Punch Taverns, Pirelli, Crawford & Company, EDP Renewables, Queensland Government Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (, Bank of Tennessee
Top Industries
No Data Available
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm50%
University13%
Transportation Company13%
Software R&D Company13%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company32%
Financial Services Firm13%
Comms Service Provider11%
Government7%
Company Size
No Data Available
REVIEWERS
Small Business33%
Midsize Enterprise22%
Large Enterprise44%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business10%
Midsize Enterprise17%
Large Enterprise73%
Find out what your peers are saying about Adobe ColdFusion vs. Appian and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
408,154 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We monitor all Rapid Application Development Software 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.