We performed a comparison between Appian and webMethods Integration Server 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."There is no need to worry about vulnerabilities in the system, because Appian built a secure system."
"The most valuable features of Appian are the VPN engine, it is fast, lightweight, and easy to set up business rules. Business teams can do it by themselves. That is a very good feature."
"Appian's most valuable feature is that we can create end-to-end process workflows with minimum turnaround."
"We appreciate the drag and drop functionality and the easy to access plug and play features."
"The most valuable features are the low coding and low code data."
"Low code development: Code can be developed pretty quickly which leads to less turnaround time for automation of business processes."
"The technical support is excellent."
"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."
"It frankly fills the gap between IT and business by having approval and policy enforcement on each state and cycle of the asset from the moment it gets created until it is retired."
"It has a good integration server, designer, and a very good API portal."
"Given that you have one integration API in place, it takes very minimal effort to scale it to any other application that might want to use the same. Its flow-based development environment is a breeze and makes it really easy to re-use most of the existing components and build up a new API."
"Broker and UM are the best features."
"The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is its reliability. It has a lot of great documentation from the service providers. Additionally, it is easy to use."
"Application integrations are offered out-of-the-box, and that is extremely important to us. This is one of the main use cases that we have for it. It is about 60 to 70 percent of the workload in our application today."
"Currently, we're using this solution for the integration server which helps us to integrate with the mainframe."
"One of the most important features is that it gives you the possibility to do low-level integration. It provides a lot of features out of the box, and over the years, it has matured so much that any problem that is there in the market can be solved with this product. We can meet any requirements through customizations, transformations, or the logic that needs to be put in. Some of the other products struggle in this aspect. They cannot do things in a certain way, or they have a product limitation, whereas, with webMethods, I have never faced this kind of problem."
"Native mobile capabilities or hybrid mobile app capabilities are very limited. Things like offline sync, offline storage, access to smartphone device features, etc. are not supported by the Appian platform yet."
"My only request is that they decrease the license costs."
"What could be improved is more on the front end perspective, like the user interface and the mobile application aspect."
"One room for improvement is the ease of UI UX development, like in OutSystems and Mendix."
"There could be a scope of enhancement for capturing the variety of use cases."
"The performance is pretty good, but the distortions need to be optimized in order for it to work well."
"Architecture of product and scalabiility issues."
"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."
"A while ago, they were hacked, and it took them a very long time to open their website again in order to download any service packs or any features. I don't know what they could do differently. I know that they were vulnerable, and there was some downtime, but because they were down, we were unable to download any potential service packs."
"t doesn't represent OOP very well, just a method and proprietary interface called IData."
"This product is for larger companies. Compared to TIBCO I think webMethods is better in terms of ease of use and support."
"Large file handling is pretty hard comparatively to other middleware tools."
"The Software AG Designer could be more memory-efficient or CPU-efficient so that we can use it with middle-spec hardware."
"Rapid application development has to be considered, especially for UI, where user interference is crucial."
"The initial setup of the webMethods Integration Server is not easy but it gets easier once you know it. It is tiresome but not difficult."
"Other products have been using AI and cloud enhancements, but webMethods Integration Server is still lagging in that key area."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 56 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) with 60 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while webMethods Integration Server 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 webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with webMethods.io Integration, IBM Integration Bus, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks and Oracle Service Bus. See our Appian vs. webMethods Integration Server report.
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.