We performed a comparison between Appian and webMethods Integration Server 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."This is the most complete solution of its kind."
"The most valuable features of Appian are the VPN engine, it is fast, lightweight, and easy to set up business rules. Business teams can do it by themselves. That is a very good feature."
"Appian has many valuable features, the first being the ease of development—rapid development. Second, the process of learning the product and tool is faster when compared to its peers in the market. It's closer to low-code, and while it's still not very easy, it's more low-code than other products in the industry. Appian has a good user interface, a seamless model user interface, which comes without additional coding. It can also integrate with multiple systems."
"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."
"It has very flexible adaptation and the ability to save and automate processes."
"It has good integrations. We were looking for out-of-the-box integration with both on-prem and publicly accessible data sources. We needed integration with the cloud, OData, our REST API feed, and then on-prem passthrough to go to a SQL database or on-prem APIs through Azure local deployment, etc."
"The initial setup was seamless. We didn't run into any hardships at all."
"It's heavy on business processing in terms of logic, process workflows, and primarily on the process design modeler. Appian is really great at that. In terms of the full stack set from a low-code platform perspective, it's definitely an eye opener since it can be deployed via mobile app and on the web as well."
"From a user perspective, the feature which I like the most about Integration Server is its designer."
"Application integration, business process integration, and B2B partner integration are valuable. But among these, I feel B2B partner integration is the most valuable. This module integrates two business partners and exchanges data through electronic data interchange messages in the form of specific standards, without any manual process needed."
"The MFT component of webMethods, for example, is easy to set up and convenient to use. It handles files very efficiently and it is easy to automate tasks with complex schedules. Monitoring is centralized to MWS which can be used to monitor other products as well (Trading Networks, BPM, MFT, etc.)"
"It's obvious that the heart of the product lies here. It's comprised of all aspects of ESB (Enterprise Gateway, Adapter, TN, Java) and BPM (task, rules engine)."
"I like the stability of the webMethods Integration Server."
"The comprehensiveness and depth of Integration Servers' connectors to packaged apps and custom apps is unlimited. They have a connector for everything. If they don't, you can build it yourself. Or oftentimes, if there is value for other customers as well, you can talk with webMethods about creating a new adapter for you."
"Best feature is Insight for monitoring, and as a debugging tool. It has saved us a lot of time during crisis situations."
"The synchronous and asynchronous messaging system the solution provides is very good."
"We have clients that want to use Office 365, Microsoft Analytics, and Power Apps. Appian just isn't the same as using something specifically designed to cater to the Microsoft Suite."
"The product’s pricing could be improved from the developers' perspective."
"The ability of the interface to load automatic data is not great."
"There are some restrictions with respect to using external components within Appian. So, for example, if we do not have a particular feature available, there's a long cycle of getting approvals and all of that. That does not offer flexibility, which definitely can be improved on."
"It has it's own built-in UI components and doesn't provide much flexibility to customize or extend those components."
"We'd like improved functionality for testing new devices."
"The graphical user interface could be easier to use. It should be simplified."
"The solution needs more features. For example, a way to connect to our viewing database, to record, and more interface and component design."
"There should be better logging, or a better dashboard, to allow you to see see the logs of the services."
"t doesn't represent OOP very well, just a method and proprietary interface called IData."
"The orchestration is not as good as it should be."
"As webMethods Integration Server is expensive, that's its area for improvement."
"We got the product via a reseller, and the support from the reseller has been less than desirable."
"The Software AG Designer could be more memory-efficient or CPU-efficient so that we can use it with middle-spec hardware."
"webMethods Integration Server needs to add more adapters."
"Large file handling is pretty hard comparatively to other middleware tools."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods.io Integration, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks and Boomi AtomSphere Integration. See our Appian vs. webMethods Integration Server report.
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.