We performed a comparison between AgilePoint and Appian 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."AgilePoint has improved our organization by making form implementation easier and to plan for future growth."
"I like the design and the integration capacity. It's also easy to use."
"The solution's workflows are its most useful feature."
"The initial setup of AgilePoint was very easy."
"AgilePoint's most valuable feature is process management."
"In terms of interface, it's very good. In terms of infrastructure, it's amazing and already using multiple tools behind the scenes. It's a low-code platform, so it's very easy to implement."
"It is really simple to create a new app, and I like the data-centric aspect of the BPM tool."
"The initial setup was seamless. We didn't run into any hardships at all."
"It's a stable product."
"It provides us with real-time data on all connected systems in terms of how they're integrated with each other and how they are performing in a workflow manner."
"Good workflow engines that bridge the gaps of processes."
"It has created executable requirements and speeds up the SDLC process greatly."
"Rapid development with low-code makes it easier to quickly get apps implemented and the time to break-even and ROI is much faster."
"While the platform is good and it has a lot of options, I would like to see more alternative features in future versions such as connectors to IDM. Currently, they have only ADFS and Okta."
"It could be more flexible, but it's already a good solution for the designer."
"They should add more information about functionality."
"The solution should be able to support Docker. This would help make scalability easier."
"Some issues with AgilePoint's design, AI and UX are some of the major problems we deal with when handling our company's business models or processes."
"The solution could use some more tutorials to help brand new users figure out how to use the product effectively."
"The solution needs more features. For example, a way to connect to our viewing database, to record, and more interface and component design."
"Appian has a few areas for improvement, which my organization raised with the Appian team. One is the Excel output which is limited to fifty columns when it should be up to two hundred or three hundred columns."
"While Appian is generally flexible, it's rigid in some ways. It takes longer to do something that isn't available out of the box."
"Lacks integration with other products."
"It would be useful if they could create an academy or forum in the future to help active users answer questions they have about the solution."
"Something I would like to see improved is an SQL database connection."
"One room for improvement is the ease of UI UX development, like in OutSystems and Mendix."
AgilePoint is ranked 32nd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 5 reviews while Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 56 reviews. AgilePoint is rated 8.0, while Appian is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of AgilePoint writes " An affordable tool to create workflows requiring an easy initial setup phase". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". AgilePoint is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, Mendix, OutSystems and Nintex Process Platform, whereas Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM. See our AgilePoint vs. Appian report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors, best Rapid Application Development Software vendors, and best Low-Code Development Platforms 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.
