We performed a comparison between CA Automic Service Orchestration [EOL] and Pega BPM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Pega, Appian and others in Process Automation."It provides a simple reduction of headcount and also a reduction of run through time."
"Jobs are planned automatically to eliminate the need to plan them manually. It also saves us effort because there is no need to create job objects manually."
"If I have a higher workload with smaller machines, it is easy to increase everything."
"The product is stable. This is the reason that we are using Automic, in some cases, because of its stability and features."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"The solution has very helpful technical support."
"While Pega technical support is okay, it also depends on the issues you need help with and who your contact is with Pega."
"Allowed us to develop and quickly release with confidence using cloud technologies."
"The initial setup is pretty straightforward."
"There is a feature to accelerate the development so that business analysts can directly create their user stories and assign the task to the developers."
"Scalable and stable BPM software with a powerful case management feature. It also has good workflow."
"Decreased time for plane departures and landing, supported analytical insight for planning of three to six month forecasting, and helped with operational decision planning and support."
"In the last two years or so, Automic has not invested as much in the product as we would have expected."
"What I am missing today is robotics. If Automic would like to stay as one of the biggest automation engines on the market, they have to find an option with a robotics solution."
"It is not fully compatible with all versions of Internet Explorer, so sometimes, it does not work."
"This is an expensive solution."
"I believe they simplify the application development. It is still complex. The learning is not easy, it takes time compared to other products on the market."
"The solution would benefit from more integration capabilities."
"They need to support the solution better, at this time the company does not have enough support."
"One of the areas of this solution that could be improved would be to advance the low code features of the application itself. We would also like to use the same platform to build any application, even if it is not necessarily defined as a functionality needed by a BPM."
"Compared to other BPM products, the interface is somewhat complex, so the usability could be improved."
"There are some UX shortcomings within the solution. However, it's my understanding that they have addressed them and in the next three months they will come out with a new updated version. They will be moving away from HTML5."
More CA Automic Service Orchestration [EOL] Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
CA Automic Service Orchestration [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Process Automation while Pega BPM is ranked 2nd in Process Automation with 55 reviews. CA Automic Service Orchestration [EOL] is rated 10.0, while Pega BPM is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of CA Automic Service Orchestration [EOL] writes "Automation of job object creation increased the quality and quantity of our job requests". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pega BPM writes "Low code with great APIs and good flexibility". CA Automic Service Orchestration [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Pega BPM is most compared with ServiceNow, Camunda, Appian, Microsoft Power Apps and IBM BPM.
See our list of best Process Automation vendors.
We monitor all Process Automation 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.