We performed a comparison between Appian and OpenText Operations Orchestration based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Process Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features are the low coding and low code data."
"There is a version coming out every six months with performance improvements."
"The solution has a lot of strong features for the financial industry, it is very easy to use."
"Compared to other code tools that I've seen, Appian has a more robust rules engine"
"With low-code, we don't need a lot of coding, and then from the plumbing perspective, there is a complete CI/CD pipeline that exists within Appian that can be leveraged for open deployment."
"The most valuable features of Appian are workflow management and the ease with which you can build the UI."
"Technical support is quite responsive."
"Form building capabilities and well thought out process modelling are key points to this product."
"It has reduced the time taken to go to market. In the past, we were struggling with building these integrations, but now the process has sped up and there is an added advantage of quick delivery. In addition, it is an agent-less solution, which provides more flexibility in terms of multiple options."
"It's very stable. If you ask me for the success rate metrics, it's more than 90% for both."
"The product is good functionality-wise. I am impressed with the tool's flexibility in customization."
"We would like to have more granular control for interface styling."
"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."
"It is difficult to set up the on-premise version."
"We'd like improved functionality for testing new devices."
"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 product’s pricing could be improved from the developers' perspective."
"The reporting is not as good as in similar products. They could also improve the dashboards."
"The solution could improve by being more responsive when dealing with large quantities of data. Additionally, they can make the decision or rules engine better. It cannot handle too many rules or too many decisions at once."
"The price is an area that should be addressed because the price is high."
"There were a lot of scalability issues that we initially faced. Whenever I tried to deploy 100-200 endpoints, it became a huge challenge. We had to actually start using other tools like Tivoli Endpoint Management in order to patch the issues."
"The tool's UI needs to be improved. It needs to have better administration features in future releases."
More OpenText Operations Orchestration Pricing and Cost Advice →
Appian is ranked 3rd in Process Automation with 57 reviews while OpenText Operations Orchestration is ranked 19th in Process Automation with 24 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while OpenText Operations Orchestration 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 Operations Orchestration writes "HP OO blows away the competition, but has its fair share of flaws". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas OpenText Operations Orchestration is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Control-M, Camunda and Microsoft System Center Orchestrator. See our Appian vs. OpenText Operations Orchestration report.
See our list of best Process Automation vendors.
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.