We performed a comparison between AuraQuantic and IBM Business Automation Workflow 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."It's a low-code application."
"AuraPortal has the best price for its process."
"AuraQuantic's most valuable features are the zero code, user-friendly mode, and integration."
"AuraPortal is very user-friendly and flexible."
"IBM Business Automation Workflow is useful for helping us design custom user interfaces and processes we require."
"The most valuable feature of IBM Business Automation Workflow is cost management."
"The solution reduces the time to the resolution which is essential for businesses."
"It performs the basic tasks that are required for the BBM solution as part of the overall integration with ECM or enterprise contact management."
"It helps develop applications very quickly. Once clients get used to it and familiar with the methodology, then they don't feel so locked in. It is able to add this element of agility to our clients' software development lifecycle. That is my favorite thing about it: You're not so locked in as you used to be when developing applications."
"It's a flexible solution."
"IBM has spent a lot of time on the connections between the rules engine and its other product, the core BPM platform. They've really centralized the suite as one offering now."
"The business process modeling is the most valuable feature."
"More documentation and the ability to extract different reports about different relations in the objects I use will help."
"We'd like it more animated. It would be useful if we could integrate GIFs, for example."
"One thing that could be improved would be for it to be deployed in a shorter time."
"AuraQuantic's price could be improved."
"The main areas which need improvement are specifically around reporting and analytics."
"IBM Business Automation Workflow is not a very user-friendly solution."
"IBM Business Automation Workflow can improve UI flexibility and integration. Additionally, the solutions from IBM have to provide a paperless solution, allowing for digital versions of documents."
"I would like to see more streamlined install and provisioning; preferably containerized IBM BPM would be helpful."
"I feel that the features are not user-friendly."
"I would definitely like to see a unified interface between the BPM side of the house and the case side of the house. Something that just seems a bit more cohesive, because right now there is sort of a disconnect between the BPM and the case side of the house. That makes it a bit of a hard sell sometimes. That is definitely first and foremost on my wish list."
"Requires a lot of customization code writing which could be reduced."
"Sometimes, we feel like we are not getting the full features of the content management capabilities."
More IBM Business Automation Workflow Pricing and Cost Advice →
AuraQuantic is ranked 18th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 6 reviews while IBM Business Automation Workflow is ranked 13th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 21 reviews. AuraQuantic is rated 8.8, while IBM Business Automation Workflow is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of AuraQuantic writes "Responsive support, easy to use, and reliable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Business Automation Workflow writes "Good for case management, integration capabilities but lacks stability". AuraQuantic is most compared with Appian, Camunda, Bizagi and IBM BPM, whereas IBM Business Automation Workflow is most compared with IBM BPM, Camunda, Apache Airflow, AWS Step Functions and IBM Case Foundation. See our AuraQuantic vs. IBM Business Automation Workflow 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.
