We performed a comparison between Appian and SAP Signavio Process Manager 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 tool is very flexible."
"Process culture is making noise inside the organization because now, everybody knows that their time is being monitored."
"Technical support has been amazing overall."
"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."
"The solution has a lot of strong features for the financial industry, it is very easy to use."
"Since implementing we have had a faster time to solution, with fewer resources needed."
"It has created executable requirements and speeds up the SDLC process greatly."
"Compared to other code tools that I've seen, Appian has a more robust rules engine"
"I have done a lot of modeling over quite a number of years, and I think that the modeling capabilities in Signavio are state of the art."
"The drag-and-drop functionality in Signavio is impressive and user-friendly, allowing easy connection to other elements without the need for excessive back-and-forth."
"Process Manager supports end-to-end transformation. Students can better understand end-to-end activity and processes as well as how they are run. For teaching, it's process discovery, then modeling, and finally optimization and simulation, partly. Typically, we showcase some simulation of the processes, and this is where we finish. That is why we validate that it's properly designed, but also what are the outcomes of modeled processes. There are also options for discussion on process optimization."
"One of the most valuable features is ease of use which has really been a good thing to put into the business. People like tools that they can just pick up and use straight-away."
"The most valuable feature for me is the collaboration point of view, where everybody has a single view, or source of truth, and everybody sees the same thing. Everyone can comment, contribute, and discuss the processes itself, which makes it easier to funnel down the most value adding comments and make the relevant changes to the processes. This leads to the next best iteration or version of your process."
"This solution is innovative and simple to use."
"This product has helped us to work within standards for process planning."
"The features I find most valuable are ease of use and the Collaboration Hub."
"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."
"It would be nice if you could create your own customized apps when the business needed them."
"Architecture of product and scalabiility issues."
"Appian could be improved by making it a strict, no-code platform with free-built process packs."
"The biggest areas of improvement would be in facilitating team development, DevOps, and integration with typical tools used in enterprise development (Jenkins, Subversion, etc.)"
"There could be a scope of enhancement for capturing the variety of use cases."
"The solution could improve robotic process automation."
"The product’s pricing could be improved from the developers' perspective."
"I think the intuitive handling is an issue which they should be more focused on, especially as we have issues with the glossary. If you want to implement Signavio within procedures in contact with other software, it's quite difficult to integrate and you will have several points where you have to double and triple the work, because you cannot maintain the data centrally. With other solutions, we can integrate it and have only one data transfer, to import and export with other solutions. A glossary is still limiting us."
"It could use a better user interface, one that is more efficient."
"The solution is complex."
"If you start from scratch then I think this product would be ideal, but if you already have something then it may or may not suit you."
"The workflow automation of the solution is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Two executives cannot work on one modeling process simultaneously."
"There is room for improvement in the reporting function. At the moment, for example, while it is possible to report on how many users you had in the last month, you can't use it to tell you how many users you had from the first week to the second week. This is really a drawback because when you have an activity to promote Signavio or BPI, it would be good to be able to measure how many people you had in the system."
"We sometimes experience downtime or a dropped connection, so I think that the stability can be improved for the SaaS solution."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews while SAP Signavio Process Manager is ranked 8th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while SAP Signavio Process Manager 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 SAP Signavio Process Manager writes "Has many functionalities and is used to model processes to the former operating model". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Microsoft Azure App Service, whereas SAP Signavio Process Manager is most compared with Celonis, ARIS BPA, Camunda, Visio and ADONIS. See our Appian vs. SAP Signavio Process Manager 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.
