We performed a comparison between AgilePoint and IBM Case Foundation 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 solution's workflows are its most useful feature."
"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."
"AgilePoint's most valuable feature is process management."
"The initial setup of AgilePoint was very easy."
"A valuable feature includes seamless integration with the document management system, along with robust capabilities in analytics and reporting."
"It is easy to set up workflows that notify the user depending on certain events."
"The solution is scalable."
"The most valuable feature is the content manager part of the file as it is very stable, robust, and reliable."
"It provides us the capability of producing business processes for documents that are launched immediately when a document comes into the repository."
"Flexible and the ability to divide search screens, and to search for documents. The ECM feature inside the system is great."
"The client and the IBM content navigation are the solution's most valuable features."
"Case Foundation provides a strong security boost."
"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."
"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."
"They should add more information about functionality."
"It could be more flexible, but it's already a good solution for the designer."
"The solution should be able to support Docker. This would help make scalability easier."
"Once a workflow is launched then it stays static forever, which is a problem because if there is a change in the business then you cannot change the workflow."
"The cloud version could use more stability."
"We are now using microservices but there are some areas where the coordination with FileNet is problematic."
"There is a need for more open and flexible integration capabilities, allowing seamless collaboration with a broader spectrum of business process management solutions, beyond the confines of IBM's document management offerings."
"The service as it currently stands is out-of-date and lacks flexibility."
"The solution can be quite expensive."
"90% of the feedback we receive states that the UI is not very user-friendly."
"IBM needs to update the user interfaces of all its products to make them more intuitive and accessible to beginners. Compared to Microsoft products, IBM solutions are less user-friendly. IBM programs are hard to master. It's a problem in my region because it's hard to find IT staff who can work with IBM."
AgilePoint is ranked 32nd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 5 reviews while IBM Case Foundation is ranked 22nd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 12 reviews. AgilePoint is rated 8.0, while IBM Case Foundation is rated 7.8. 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 IBM Case Foundation writes "Streamlined business process automation with user-friendly design". AgilePoint is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, Mendix, OutSystems, Nintex Process Platform and IBM BPM, whereas IBM Case Foundation is most compared with IBM Business Automation Workflow. See our AgilePoint vs. IBM Case Foundation 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.
