We performed a comparison between Boomi AtomSphere Flow and Microsoft Power Apps based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Low-Code Development Platforms solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."In the long run, if you have a good team, solution architect, and an architect from Boomi's side, then it is a good tool from an ROI perspective since it can help save money."
"Boomi AtomSphere Flow is integrated through APIs, it exposes the API and any product can call the APIs in the queue. Additionally, it is secure."
"Boomi AtomSphere Flow is very easy to develop and maintain compared to other tools like SAP HANA Cloud Integration or Cloud Platform."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its core integration with Boomi AtomSphere because it's extremely easy to tap into any informational system of a company."
"Can design apps quickly and can connect to any database."
"In Microsoft PowerApps the most valuable features are the fully customizable design that we can control everything that we would like to control. For example, the integration between Microsoft and third-party services through pre-built connectors, and the functionality to create custom connectors."
"Microsoft PowerApps allows you to simplify business processes and user experience. You can also create responsive applications and canvas apps through this solution. It's an easy to scale, stable, and low-code solution."
"The most valuable feature is the compatibility with other Microsoft components."
"The solution works great and is stable."
"When I am developing any user UI, it gives me complete flexibility. I can manage in any way I want."
"The product has good usability, in terms of low-code applications."
"It's a very workable solution because it's an automated way of making applications. You have a template, you have the application know-how,"
"The development effort with Boomi AtomSphere Flow is more when you compare it with other tools, which is a drawback and an area of improvement."
"The solution's user interface building needs improvement."
"The solution could improve by being more user-friendly. The whole solution is used through an interface and it could always be improved."
"Its stability could be improved."
"Microsoft PowerApps is not responsive in nature."
"The pricing structure needs to be improved, the current information is confusing."
"The solution needs a bit more refinement in general."
"PowerApps can't do a lot of things that users need now. For example, it can't handle signatures."
"There is room for improvement with the amount of code required to implement the expense classification app."
"Microsoft PowerApps can be more costly for small teams or organizations."
"Can be improved to cater to complex developments."
"Microsoft PowerApps can improve the number of bugs that are present. When you are using the different applications it is not accurate."
Boomi AtomSphere Flow is ranked 17th in Low-Code Development Platforms with 4 reviews while Microsoft Power Apps is ranked 1st in Low-Code Development Platforms with 77 reviews. Boomi AtomSphere Flow is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Power Apps is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Boomi AtomSphere Flow writes "A competent solution for integrating enterprise-grade software". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Power Apps writes "Low-code, low learning curve, and reduces manpower". Boomi AtomSphere Flow is most compared with Apache Airflow, Camunda, Pega BPM, Mendix and AWS Step Functions, whereas Microsoft Power Apps is most compared with Mendix, Oracle Application Express (APEX), ServiceNow and Appian. See our Boomi AtomSphere Flow vs. Microsoft Power Apps report.
See our list of best Low-Code Development Platforms vendors.
We monitor all Low-Code Development Platforms 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.