We performed a comparison between Appian and OpenText MBPM 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."Appian helps you do a lot of things. It's easy to configure and build an application platform, and it offers a lot of features that you find in an RPA solution. It's flexible so you can reuse it for a variety of use cases."
"The tool is very flexible."
"The low code functionality and being able to get applications faster to customers or to the market are valuable."
"The process models provide self-documenting systems."
"It reduces development time in half making us more efficient."
"The most valuable feature is business automation."
"The setup is easy."
"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."
"Not just the solution's automation capabilities, but we like everything about it since we are more of a system integrator."
"If that had more DevOps capabilities, it would be an excellent product."
"Occasionally, certain pre-made modules may not be necessary and customers may desire greater customization options. Instead of being limited to pre-designed features, they may prefer a more flexible version that allows for greater customization."
"While Appian is generally flexible, it's rigid in some ways. It takes longer to do something that isn't available out of the box."
"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 would like to see more reduced latency. We would like to make sure that the scale-out factor will be much more as workloads come in."
"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."
"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."
"Offline capabilities and responsive capabilities could be better. The mobility features of Appian platform are still evolving."
"There are shortcomings in the solution's support and documentation part."
"The user interface could be better in OpenText MBPM."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews while OpenText MBPM is ranked 41st in Business Process Management (BPM) with 2 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while OpenText MBPM is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText MBPM writes " A solution offering good automation capabilities while needing to improve its support and documentation". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas OpenText MBPM is most compared with Camunda. See our Appian vs. OpenText MBPM 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.
