We performed a comparison between Appian 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."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."
"Since implementing we have had a faster time to solution, with fewer resources needed."
"Low code development: Code can be developed pretty quickly which leads to less turnaround time for automation of business processes."
"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."
"Technical support is helpful."
"I find the BPM the most valuable feature."
"The agile manner that we require to create our workflows. This is probably the most critical part of our solution and the time it takes to start processing the solution."
"It is really simple to create a new app, and I like the data-centric aspect of the BPM tool."
"Case Foundation provides a strong security boost."
"Flexible and the ability to divide search screens, and to search for documents. The ECM feature inside the system is great."
"The content management is great."
"The most valuable feature is the content manager part of the file as it is very stable, robust, and reliable."
"It is easy to set up workflows that notify the user depending on certain events."
"It provides us the capability of producing business processes for documents that are launched immediately when a document comes into the repository."
"It's very easy."
"The client and the IBM content navigation are the solution's most valuable features."
"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."
"The product’s pricing could be improved from the developers' perspective."
"If that had more DevOps capabilities, it would be an excellent product."
"It would be nice if you could create your own customized apps when the business needed them."
"We would like to have more granular control for interface styling."
"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."
"My only request is that they decrease the license costs."
"Architecture of product and scalabiility issues."
"There are some features that could be enhanced like the document viewer"
"The place of improvement is merging or combining all of the workflow functionality into one seamless tool. Now, there are multiple installations that are different. Case Foundation, before you can put Case Manager and you've got IBM BPM, and the roadmap is there to merge them altogether. But that's the struggle at the moment, it's having multiple installations and disparate workflow applications."
"Comparing the solution with other interfaces, IBM BPM is much better than Case Foundation. They need to make this solution's interface more user-friendly."
"The solution can be quite expensive."
"We are now using microservices but there are some areas where the coordination with FileNet is problematic."
"90% of the feedback we receive states that the UI is not very user-friendly."
"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."
"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."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews while IBM Case Foundation is ranked 27th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 12 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while IBM Case Foundation is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Case Foundation writes "Streamlined business process automation with user-friendly design". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas IBM Case Foundation is most compared with IBM Business Automation Workflow. See our Appian 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.
