We performed a comparison between OpenText ProVision and QPR ProcessDesigner based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Apache, Pega and others in Business Process Management (BPM)."OpenText ProVision's best feature is the capability to attach a variety of attributes and extract and analyze that information."
"The stability of the product is very good."
"All the features come as part of a standard license."
"It makes communication easier due to transparency on processes."
"Processes become clearer, easier to understand, and easier to spot in development areas."
"Integrating with or interfacing with other tools like data management tools would be very helpful."
"Lacks the ability to have your own in-house developments."
"OpenText ProVision's collaboration management is quite complicated and difficult to use."
"There is definitely a need to produce models in XML. There is already something available, but it seems that transferring between the different modelling tools is difficult."
Earn 20 points
OpenText ProVision is ranked 35th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 3 reviews while QPR ProcessDesigner is ranked 25th in Business Process Design. OpenText ProVision is rated 6.4, while QPR ProcessDesigner is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText ProVision writes "Good attribute attachment but problems with collaboration". On the other hand, the top reviewer of QPR ProcessDesigner writes "FactView was easy to use and integrate". OpenText ProVision is most compared with ARIS BPA, Visio, Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect and SAP Signavio Process Manager, whereas QPR ProcessDesigner is most compared with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect and SAP Signavio Process Manager.
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.
