We performed a comparison between Appian and TIBCO iProcess Suite 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 is helpful."
"The setup is easy."
"The most valuable features of Appian are workflow management and the ease with which you can build the UI."
"Low code development: Code can be developed pretty quickly which leads to less turnaround time for automation of business processes."
"It has very flexible adaptation and the ability to save and automate processes."
"Since implementing we have had a faster time to solution, with fewer resources needed."
"It has good integrations. We were looking for out-of-the-box integration with both on-prem and publicly accessible data sources. We needed integration with the cloud, OData, our REST API feed, and then on-prem passthrough to go to a SQL database or on-prem APIs through Azure local deployment, etc."
"It is really simple to create a new app, and I like the data-centric aspect of the BPM tool."
"It's very simple to use and the integration features between Java and other services within the workflow are very easy."
"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."
"Appian could improve their customer-facing initiatives."
"I would like to see more features for enterprises. They would also benefit from adding documentation and training on their site."
"One room for improvement is the ease of UI UX development, like in OutSystems and Mendix."
"One of the areas that Appian is working on is to improve its UI capabilities and give more flexibility to the UI."
"Lacks integration with other products."
"A point of improvement would be the SAIL forms. The built-in tool used to generate forms does not have debugging support (to view local variables as they change on live preview, and step-by-step valuation) which is a big drawback for form development. Moreover, the script language used to build SAIL forms does not support inheritance or lambda expressions (functions as arguments of other functions), which makes the code base more verbose."
"Even though the company has made great improvements in online documentation, featuring rich material which includes case studies of real-life use cases, the material could definitely be better in quality and coverage of use cases."
"Our customers and developers have complained that the UI is a little bit confusing."
Earn 20 points
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 56 reviews while TIBCO iProcess Suite is ranked 40th in Business Process Management (BPM). Appian is rated 8.4, while TIBCO iProcess Suite is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of TIBCO iProcess Suite writes "An easy-to-use solution with great integration". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas TIBCO iProcess Suite is most compared with Apache Airflow, TIBCO ActiveMatrix BPM and Camunda. See our Appian vs. TIBCO iProcess Suite 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.