Abdurrahman GoriTechnical Manager at a comms service provider
Paul ParisiEnterprise Architect at Mobiliser
SaiedKhaniERP Functional Specialist at Aryasasol
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share the logic within the rules engine with the business, so you can put it up for everybody to read."
"When I compare it with other BPM tools, like IBM, it is great, open source, and free when you use the community version."
"The solution is easily compatible with HTML forms and HTML language programming and that is the most significant part."
"The speed and execution of DMN was a big selling point for us. It's very good at conducting business processes that are easily modeled and presented in a way that's easy to understand."
"It allows me to present or to demonstrate the business process flow, visually, without having to resort to PowerPoint, Visio, or other products."
"It has an open BPM"
"The interface and the number of connectors that they provide are the most valuable features. The support here, it's kind of okay. But the main thing is with the number of connectors and the UI, the user interface."
"Being able to use a Java-based solution makes the product flexible."
"Since implementing we have had a faster time to solution, with fewer resources needed."
"The process models provide self-documenting systems."
"We appreciate the drag and drop functionality and the easy to access plug and play features."
"Appian also has very flexible local integration."
"Good workflow engines that bridge the gaps of 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."
"The product has a very good mobile app."
"The initial setup was seamless. We didn't run into any hardships at all."
"I really enjoy using the workflow management."
"This product is very easy-to-use and user-friendly."
"The solution is stable. Even the older versions are stable."
"The user interface is better than all of the open-source BPMs that I have tried."
"Flexible and drag-and-drop type of UI is very valuable. The integrations are also very good. You can build workflows very quickly, which is my favorite activity. By using the GUI, you can build the entire mechanism, notifications, and all this kind of stuff."
"One of the most valuable features is you can create without coding, it is a low code platform."
"I would like to see the forms engine available in the open-source version of this solution."
"I would like to have a feature for audit logging, audit logs and audit log management. And some history of use for the audit logs."
"I would also like a very easy to use form builder."
"Especially when you use the open-source version, there are issues with performance."
"If there were some industry templates it would have helped significantly, because it is similar to a process map for a domain. That is what we are currently creating, a domain-relevant process map."
"Lacking in forms visualization."
"The support definitely can be improved. Apart from that, the language should be extendable to other platforms. If I want to write, I'll run a different platform, like Python code on top of it, or COBOL code on top of it, and it should support those languages."
"The solution could use some enhancements like adding connectors, improving forms and having a mobile app, but everything is an enhancement rather than a flaw."
"We would like to have more granular control for interface styling."
"My only request is that they decrease the license costs."
"The solution could use some more tutorials to help brand new users figure out how to use the product effectively."
"They should provide more flexibility so designers can create a more picture perfect device."
"Lacks integration with other products."
"It is also not easy to learn. Training tutorials could be improved."
"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."
"I would like to see more complete university tools. For example, with UiPath, I have had a good experience related to a free course in order to provide some users some different levels of knowledge. This extra training helps users not only use the solution but to develop further within the tool."
"We are struggling a bit with integrations."
"It is missing some important features that other products have."
"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."
"I have run into a lot of problems because there is not enough documentation."
"I should be able to park the tasks that are within a process in a kind of container, and dynamically, a super admin should be able to connect these processes. This kind of feature might be helpful."
"There could be an improvement in IoT connectivity."
"We are using the open-source version of this solution."
"Camunda is much cheaper."
"I use the open-source free version."
"The open-source version of the product is free to use."
"The cost of this solution is better than some competing products."
"Licensing costs are anywhere from $80,000 to $100,000 USD per year."
"We use the open-source version, which can be used at no cost."
"I think Camunda BPM can improve their licensing costs. It isn't easy to find clients with Camunda BPM licenses mainly because it's quite expensive."
"The solution offers a monthly subscription model. That's what we use. I recall it being about $90 a month. They do have different tiers."
"It's an enterprise tool and can be used by enterprise only. So it's a very expensive tool."
"The licensing will be on a monthly basis. We are estimating that cost to be around $2000 to maybe $3,000 per month. We don't foresee any costs above that."
"The pricing can be a little confusing to customers."
"The Community Edition comes free of charge."
"We are using the Community Version, which can be used free of charge."
"Licensing cost for the Enterprise edition comes out to be around 40,000 a year. There is also a Community edition, which is free. Some customers can go for the Community edition, but some of them require the Enterprise edition. Big companies go for the Enterprise edition, which comes with a lot of additional features such as a mobile app."
"The price of the solution is reasonable."
Camunda Platform is a complete process automation tech stack with powerful execution engines for BPMN workflows and DMN decisions paired with essential applications for modeling, operations, and analytics.
With a clear vision to automate any process, anywhere, Camunda is reinventing process automation for the digital enterprise. Featuring a developer-friendly, open source approach, enterprises can use Camunda Platform to breakthrough technological, organizational, and infrastructure barriers, optimize their business processes, and drive their digital transformation initiatives forward.
Appian is ranked 5th in Process Automation with 11 reviews while Bonita is ranked 8th in Process Automation with 6 reviews. Appian is rated 8.8, while Bonita is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Offers flexible local integration that we have used extensively to integrate with our Legacy system". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Bonita writes "Helps us to create the process, pages, and forms and is easy to use". Appian is most compared with Pega BPM, ServiceNow, Mendix, Salesforce Platform and Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) Forms, whereas Bonita is most compared with Bizagi, ProcessMaker, Apache Airflow, Pega BPM and IBM BPM. See our Appian vs. Bonita report.
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.