We performed a comparison between Appian and TIBCO ActiveMatrix BPM 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."
"Low code development: Code can be developed pretty quickly which leads to less turnaround time for automation of business processes."
"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."
"The initial setup was seamless. We didn't run into any hardships at all."
"We appreciate the drag and drop functionality and the easy to access plug and play features."
"Form building capabilities and well thought out process modelling are key points to this product."
"The product has a very good mobile app."
"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 product's initial setup phase is straightforward."
"The scheduling and the calendar are very useful."
"For specific situations this can be a good solution and a simplified interface to work with."
"The capacity for distributing the jobs in a workflow is an important feature."
"It is the best product because of its stability. ActiveMatrix 5.x is highly stable in production, and the downtime is very low. I have worked on a lot of service projects, and the engine is very stable, robust, and scalable. The development and change requests can be pushed quickly, and the mapper activity and SSLT kind of features are also good. It is easy to do changes, testing, and deployment. Its deployment is very easy, and we can automate a lot of scripts for our on-premises solution. I work for an investment bank, and we have automated a lot of processes for our customers. Previously, we used to develop scripts and tools. With version 6.x, everything is moved to Maven and other things. Environment handling is done mostly through DevOps tools. As compared to Mulesoft, the deployment and configuration are very easy in TIBCO."
"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."
"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."
"One room for improvement is the ease of UI UX development, like in OutSystems and Mendix."
"Lacks integration with other products."
"It is also not easy to learn. Training tutorials could be improved."
"There are four areas I believe Appian could improve in. The first is a seamless contact center integration. Appian does not have a contact center feature. The second is advanced features in RPA. The third would be chatbot and email bot integration—while Appian comes with chatbot and email bot, it's not as mature as it should be, compared to the competition. The fourth area would be next best action, since there is not much of this sort of feature in Appian. These are all features which competitors' products have, and in a mature manner, whereas Appian lacks on these four areas. I see customers who are moving from Appian to Pega because these features are not in Appian."
"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 is difficult to set up the on-premise version."
"The maintenance of the package could be improved."
"The scalability of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Technical support needs to be streamlined."
"The product is missing some means of addressing more complex BPM constructs and should interface with more platforms easily."
"ActiveMatrix is in the middle field. MuleDB is more on the engineering side with Java and other things. SnapLogic is there are on the higher side with very low coding. TIBCO stays in the middle like IBM or Oracle. TIBCO can move towards IBM's way of doing. IBM has a big market and many varieties of products and good integration, which TIBCO doesn't have. It can have better integration. TIBCO's transition to the cloud is a little slow. As compared to Dell, Boomi, and Mulesoft. TIBCO took the steps a little later. TIBCO's ID was far better and easier to work with previously. TIBCO's 5.x ID was very good, and the development environment and the transition were easy. Version 6.5 onwards, it is a stable product, but it would be good if they can do something similar to version 5.4 with version 6. They should concentrate on this API market. It will give them the strength and the ability to grab the market back."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews while TIBCO ActiveMatrix BPM is ranked 31st in Business Process Management (BPM) with 6 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while TIBCO ActiveMatrix BPM is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of TIBCO ActiveMatrix BPM writes "A tool backed by stellar support that has helped me plan workflows easily". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas TIBCO ActiveMatrix BPM is most compared with Camunda, TIBCO iProcess Suite, Pega BPM, IBM BPM and AWS Step Functions. See our Appian vs. TIBCO ActiveMatrix BPM 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.