We performed a comparison between Appian and OpenText AppWorks 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."Technical support has been amazing overall."
"Since implementing we have had a faster time to solution, with fewer resources needed."
"It has very flexible adaptation and the ability to save and automate processes."
"Technical support is quite responsive."
"Appian also has very flexible local integration."
"Low code development: Code can be developed pretty quickly which leads to less turnaround time for automation of business processes."
"It provides us with real-time data on all connected systems in terms of how they're integrated with each other and how they are performing in a workflow manner."
"Appian's most valuable feature is that we can create end-to-end process workflows with minimum turnaround."
"We've automated several processes, including purchase requisition to purchase orders, RFQ processes, vendor onboarding, project budgeting, and business case creation. The recent versions of OpenText AppWorks, especially those incorporating low-code functionalities, have had a significant positive impact. In some cases, we've observed a remarkable reduction in development time, ranging from 50 to 75 percent. The MTP model and life cycle have facilitated rapid development cycles."
"In terms of the scalability and the handling of complexity, the customers are satisfied, and we also have confidence in the solution to achieve whatever implementations are required."
"OpenText AppWorks has standard features such as system-to-system and human-to-human integrations, but what I find most valuable in the solution is its monitoring feature that tells you more about your processes, how to restart and how to stop each process, etc."
"AppWorks is a very quick development platform with low-coding capability and strong integration with third-party systems."
"From a business perspective, the most valuable aspect lies in the optimization of processes."
"One of the most useful features is the code is customizable, we can make it our own."
"The monitoring aspect is highly valuable, as it offers an exceptional capability to track every minute of action performed by a business user in the global context."
"We really appreciate the process automation and how can you create human tasks as one of your processes."
"It would be useful if they could create an academy or forum in the future to help active users answer questions they have about the solution."
"The UI of Appian is more internal. Recently, there has been an addition of an external user portal for the customer-facing stuff. It's still coming out."
"The solution needs more features. For example, a way to connect to our viewing database, to record, and more interface and component design."
"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."
"Sometimes, clients expect us to implement ERP using Appian, which is very complicated. In such cases, I don't believe that Appian is a good tool for that."
"It has it's own built-in UI components and doesn't provide much flexibility to customize or extend those components."
"The product’s pricing could be improved from the developers' perspective."
"Lacks business rules management as part of the solution."
"The solution needs to continue to enhance the low-coding feature within the product itself."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing structure."
"OpenText AppWork's low-code capabilities can be enhanced by integrating them with AI offerings like Aviator."
"There could be some improvements with the low code design part. It could be more customizable and more user friendly."
"AppWorks could be improved by including BPM simulation."
"The integration could improve."
"A room for improvement in OpenText AppWorks is its user interface. It should have mobile compatibility because right now, you still have to make two applications with a user interface for Android and a user interface for iOS, so if OpenText AppWorks can provide one UI that can be used across all devices, that would make the solution better. An additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of OpenText AppWorks is a better UI in terms of the look and feel. Another feature I'd like to see in the next version of the solution is mobile compatibility because, at the moment, you have to make your application mobile-ready or compatible with mobile devices because there's no provision for it in OpenText AppWorks."
"The crucial missing element is the archival function."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 56 reviews while OpenText AppWorks is ranked 16th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 8 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while OpenText AppWorks 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 OpenText AppWorks writes "Automates processes like purchase requisition to purchase orders, RFQ processes, vendor onboarding, project budgeting, and business case creation". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas OpenText AppWorks is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, ServiceNow Now Platform, OutSystems, Mendix and Pega BPM. See our Appian vs. OpenText AppWorks 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.
