We performed a comparison between Appian and WorkflowGen 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 has very flexible adaptation and the ability to save and automate processes."
"Compared to other code tools that I've seen, Appian has a more robust rules engine"
"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."
"The low code functionality and being able to get applications faster to customers or to the market are valuable."
"SAIL (Self-Assembling Interface Layer), a scripting language provided by Appian. It is the equivalent of JS and CSS. It allows creation of complex UIs which are also responsive. With SAIL, we have a single language for both the UI logic and its appearance. UI components can be built as reusable components and used in multiple UI interfaces."
"What I found most valuable in Appian is that it lets you drill down on multiple things through the structure of the reporting and UI side. It's also low-code, yet it results in quick deliverables."
"Good workflow engines that bridge the gaps of processes."
"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."
"We use it a lot for creating workflows to transfer materials between plants, which is a signature part of what we do."
"We would like to see more reduced latency. We would like to make sure that the scale-out factor will be much more as workloads come in."
"I wouldn't say their response time is long, but it could be quicker."
"Appian could be improved by making it a strict, no-code platform with free-built process packs."
"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."
"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."
"There should be more flexibility for the developers to choose the look and feel of the UI. They should have a better ability to design their widgets and customize them with different colors, shapes, and sizes. That is a limitation that could be improved upon."
"We would like to have more granular control for interface styling."
"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."
"This solution needs to be more customizable."
Earn 20 points
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews while WorkflowGen is ranked 53rd in Business Process Management (BPM). Appian is rated 8.4, while WorkflowGen is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of WorkflowGen writes "Good for automatically triggering workflows, but needs to be more customizable". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas WorkflowGen is most compared with . See our Appian vs. WorkflowGen report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors, best Process Automation vendors, and best Rapid Application Development Software 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.