We performed a comparison between Appian and Bonita based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Process Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The process models provide self-documenting systems."
"The most valuable features are the low coding and low code data."
"Technical support has been amazing overall."
"It's a stable product."
"Appian is easy to install and set up, and it does not come out with your audit. It has accessible process orchestration and process management. With Appian, the time to market is much faster."
"Call Web Service Smart Service - Web service integrations with other systems are super simple and fast to create, supported by low code menus."
"The solution's most valuable features are the regular periodic and quarterly updates, they are very useful updates. They keep improving the solution more often, and that helps the platform or code always be up to date with the latest features."
"Low code development: Code can be developed pretty quickly which leads to less turnaround time for automation of business processes."
"Process automation with Bonita BPM is really easy."
"The solution is easy to use."
"I find process management and user interface designing the most valuable features."
"The user interface is better than all of the open-source BPMs that I have tried."
"One of the most valuable features is you can create without coding, it is a low code platform."
"The user interface is easy to use."
"The most valuable features of Bonita are the connectors, detailed documentation, and web applications. The documentation was useful because it is how I learned how to use it."
"We use the tool to validate and give access to the users. It is for access management."
"Authoring tool is slow to use resulted in limitations on how quickly solutions can be built."
"Lacks integration with other products."
"One of the areas that Appian is working on is to improve its UI capabilities and give more flexibility to the UI."
"Architecture of product and scalabiility issues."
"The product’s pricing could be improved from the developers' perspective."
"The solution could improve robotic process automation."
"One room for improvement is the ease of UI UX development, like in OutSystems and Mendix."
"Appian is easy to set up, but JBoss is complex. JBoss is the application server for running Appian."
"There is a need for more components in the library and additional customization options for these components."
"It is missing some important features that other products have."
"Automation in vacation of a human resources replacement would be a good improvement in the product."
"The dashboard has limited features."
"Installation could be made easier."
"The community edition has limited module functionality. If they could release some of the functionality that's available in the enterprise edition that would be helpful to those learning to use the solution."
"The interface is advanced and quite good, but it could improve."
"It would be nice to have a wizard to help walk through the development process and create a backbone."
Appian is ranked 3rd in Process Automation with 57 reviews while Bonita is ranked 12th in Process Automation with 27 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while Bonita is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Bonita writes "A simple and lightweight college course automation system with third-party integrations". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas Bonita is most compared with Camunda, Bizagi, IBM BPM, Apache Airflow and Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect. See our Appian vs. Bonita report.
See our list of best Process Automation vendors and best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors.
We monitor all Process Automation 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.