Nintex Process Platform Reviews

The solution has the capability to handle robust execution.

The solution's flexibility can be improved. K2 needs to be fully code-free, and they should try Endeavor to make it code-free. It will help to hide the complexities of smart objects.

Improvements can be made because we are implementing one solution and need a solution that integrates into itself. It's very tedious to manage, so they should ensure that everything is integrated and taken care of.

We have been using K2 for three years.

The solution is scalable. Approximately 100 people use it in our organization.

The customer service and support team are good. The premium support is good, and their response is fast.

K2 is reasonably priced and you pay for licenses. It costs less than half a million, and you own your licenses yearly. Additionally, you pay 400,000 for support and maintenance, but similar tools charge per user. So you are paying roughly $80 per month for one user, which can be quite costly if you have a large organization.

We are currently evaluating Camunda and Integrify.

I rate the solution a six out of ten. K2 is not mature and still needs a lot of stabilization. My advice to new users considering the product will be to use it without customizing it. After installation, use the vanilla workflows, and you will get fast performance. However, if you customize it, you will run into challenges.

Primarily, the solution is used to manage business processes in an organization. It helps with fast app developments and approvals. 

K2 has a very wide collection of smart object technology. It's phenomenal. The concept of the smart objects is core to K2. 

The setup is easy.

The solution is stable.

It can scale well.

Support is helpful. 

I'm not up to date on recent upgrades. I've heard that in the latest technology, the solution is much faster, and the UI has improved. It used to be notoriously slow. 

I'm not sure if they have reusability yet. That's one thing I've always wanted - the reusability of the components. 

We'd like to have integration with SharePoint. 

I've used the solution for more than five years. 

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It's reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

It's scalable. It's able to expand easily. 

There aren't too many users using it in the company. We had maybe 1,000 users at one point. I'm not sure if this is still the case. 

We've used technical support. I've contacted them many times. They provide good solutions. We're happy with the support.

While I have used other solutions in the past, I'm not really an expert in others. 

They have a well-managed three-tier implementation. It's very straightforward.

There's an integrated tool used during the deployment, and the process only takes five to ten minutes. The deployment tool makes it very fast and easy. 

You just need a team of five, maximum, for deployment and maintenance. You might not necessarily need a dedicated person to handle the deployment. 

The deployment is basically done in-house. 

The solution used to be server-based. Now that it is on the cloud, the licensing is user-based. 

In terms of the market, K2 is not overly expensive. It's mid-range. 

While K2 is cloud-based now, many older customers use an on-premises version. 

This solution was acquired by Nintex.

I'd advise potential users if they have a legacy K2 system, to upgrade to the latest version of K2. They provide support and handle the migration of legacy K2 to the latest version. You get more features and advancements. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

We use the solution for a lot of things. However, one of the main things we use it for is approval workflows.

I really like the visual representation. It actually looks like a flow chart, which is nicer than a SharePoint Designer workflow, which doesn't have that ability.

The solution is a bit too expensive. It could be cheaper.

I've been dealing with the solution for two or three years at this point.

The product is quite stable. I haven't had issues with bugs or glitches. It hasn't crashed or frozen on me. It's reliable, as far as I can tell.

It's my understanding that the solution is scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it should be able to do so.

We have about 1,500 users on the solution currently. Anyone who can access SharePoint can access this product, and that is pretty much the entire company.

I've dealt with technical support in the past. They could be better. They aren't as responsive or knowledgeable as they could be. I'm not completely satisfied with their level of service. That's just my own personal experience. They have tried to be helpful, and the issues I had with them were a long time ago.

The initial setup, as far as I understand it, was not complex. It was very straightforward. However, I personally didn't install it. It was installed when I came to the job.

The cost of the solution is quite high. If they could work to reduce it for their customer, that would be ideal for us.

We pay on a yearly basis. It's my understanding that we pay approximately $11,000/year.

We're just customers and end-users. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

I am using the latest version of the solution, whichever it is. I'm not sure of the exact name of the version.

I don't know how the product compares with other solutions other than the older versions of Workflow such as SharePoint Designer.  I know that with Online, SharePoint Online, there are other workflow management tools that you can use if you would like to.

In general, I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We're mostly happy with it.

Process automation, electronic forms, and digital transformation in all versions of SharePoint, on-prem and in Office 365. As a consultant and developer, I have used Nintex everywhere, including the SharePoint-agnostic Nintex Workflow Cloud.

In some instances, workflows I’ve built for customers have transformed the business, saving significant time and costs compared to manual, legacy processes. In several instances the savings have been enough to provide the ROI for SharePoint and Nintex licensing, and project costs, within a business quarter.

A well-placed digital transformation solution can reduce turnaround for key processes, enabling businesses to compete with and beat out competition by streamlining their processes and enabling their workforce to get more done in less time.

As a workflow automation solution, being able to route, approve and manage content is one of the few areas in SharePoint where there is a true ROI. Provides the ability to automate SharePoint processes (building sites, lists, updating content).

You can also automate document and content processes, onboarding and offboarding, and general IT and HR solutions.

With an extensive list of integrations with LOB data, your workflows can extend far beyond SharePoint, driving adoption of SharePoint and saving people, departments, and companies significant time in their daily processes. These are huge value drivers for SharePoint and Nintex.

• Built-in reporting on-prem is limited and clunky at best.
• Integration can be fairly technical, and often business rules inhibit product capabilities or force a developer to consider alternate methods for integration.
• Hawkeye is emerging as a reporting solution, but as a V1 product it’s not very useful yet.

Nintex is as stable as your SharePoint farm (on-prem), and in Office 365 workflows are robust. The application functions as expected and any issues with workflows or forms typically come down to design flaws rather than application issues. Nintex has been out and available since SharePoint 2007, so it’s a mature platform.

Scalability is tough. Workflows in SharePoint have the lowest priority of any task, and, in on-prem, workflows execute against the Web front-end servers. If your WFEs are under spec or at spec, workflow load will impact performance, and you may need to up resources or consider adding WFEs to enable large-scale deployments. 

In Office 365, the licensing model will be your limiting factor (subscription for the number of published workflows) so scalability is a non-issue.

Nintex technical support is not great. On a scale of one to 10 they are a three. They are slow to respond, and you often have to wait for or ask for escalation. It’s important to note that they only support "break/fix" – they will not assist with design or development questions. However, the online community and documentation in most cases more than makes up for support.

SharePoint Designer and Visual Studio are alternatives, as are K2 and a few newer players in the visual workflow and forms design arena. These tools tend to be far more technical to use, harder to support, and also have limitations not inherent to Nintex. While Nintex is an expensive solution, the value can be returned very quickly, with the quick development and go-live cycle, as compared to traditional or competitor tools. This is a key value for Nintex.

Setup is simple and straightforward. There are a few prerequisites for installation, but the Nintex documentation for on-premise installation is solid and, if followed, the installation will run very quickly. It does involve some downtime so planning is required (several IIS resets during installation). However, it’s one of the easier things to install in SharePoint.

In Office 365, installation is as simple as installing it from the store and adding the app to the site collection, so could not be much easier.

Nintex products are expensive, but valuable. Licensing in on-premise was historically based on a perpetual model, where you’d license per Web front-end. However, they are switching exclusively to a consumption (subscription) model, where you purchase the number of workflows you think you’ll use in your environment, and can scale up from there. 

I suggest talking to a Nintex partner for licensing advice and guidance for your specific needs.

We have tested and evaluated numerous competitors, the principal of which is K2. However, K2 is equally expensive when you get down to specifics, and requires a dedicated infrastructure, whereas Nintex resides on existing SharePoint Servers. K2 is also far more technical in nature. It does have some benefits over Nintex (principally high-volume workflows – think point-of-sale or hundreds or thousands of transactions per hour), so careful evaluation of your needs is important in selecting the right tool.

I have also developed workflows using SharePoint Designer and Visual Studio, but again they are far more complex and longer to develop, as compared to Nintex.

Get a trial, talk to a technical sales rep, and just go in and try to build something. It’s pretty amazing how easy it is to use, and trials are good for 30 days. Talk to a premier partner if you can.

K2's best feature is that it can solve complex tasks, issues, and projects with little coding.

K2's support for DevOp team corporations is weak.

I've been using K2 for two and a half years.

K2 is very stable - there have been almost no problems in the time I've been using it.

The initial setup is straightforward because it can be deployed on a DB server, application server, and web server.

For the initial hundred users, the cost is $21,000 per year, which I find too high. There are soft thresholds for this initial license, like the number of forms and environments. 

I would give K2 a rating of seven out of ten.

We have predominantly been using the solution as the front end for automation solutions. I'm a program manager. We don't have a direct link to K2, but we work closely with them and carry out a lot of maintenance and other work through them. So it's quite a deep-rooted relationship.

The biggest selling point for us was that the solution had out of box connectivity with UiPath and we didn't have to write any custom code to be able to invoke UiPath bots and automation solutions. That worked well for us in the past but when you talk about other specific functionalities, like the applications or authentication on native operating systems for mobiles and those kinds of things, K2 is lacking big time. The solution doesn't really have a good set up and I think as more and more businesses want app rather than desktop systems or web systems, K2 is not necessarily the best solution going forward.

The solution is heavy and cumbersome and it has a very stringent way of doing things. It's not difficult but at the same time it's not flexible enough. If you don't do it properly, you can't render it on mobile properly and it just runs into a lot of issues. I think what we need is a more flexible platform that can actually give us that option, a second option or a main option, to move away from K2. We run into issues at times and it's mainly around the way we design applications and mainly around how we want to use applications. It restricts us in a very specific way to be able to fully utilize the capability. I think K2 is a bit far from being a perfect mobile development platform. We'd like to look at Microsoft as an option.

I've been using this solution for three years. 

Scalability is a kind of dependent thing. Essentially, it would require infrastructure and IT development to be able to do anything with the infra scalability or the platform scalability. We haven't tried it. We do know that when we want to sync up different environments, it's not that straightforward. I mean it's not complex, but it has a lot of activities. It's not a straight sync up between the two servers. You have to do a lot of tasks including download packages. It's a bit annoying because it takes up too much time from the ops team to be able to sync the two environments, especially when you're uploading packages that at times are not compatible. Again, it could be dependent on the way we've set it up on-prem. I don't necessarily know if that's a K2 issue or if it's an infra issue on our end, but assume it's likely both.

I haven't dealt with technical support because our ops team does that if they ever have to.

I'm a massive fan of K2 even though it's given me a bit of trouble in the past. Essentially, I think there are good features in there as well. It really comes down to your personal requirements, I believe. It's supposed to be a kind of designer-based application, work flow creation application or platform but I personally think that it takes a lot more technical ability to be able to design applications on K2. It requires more than somebody off the street, you need someone who can actually do a bit of design work and be able to spin up a really good application. It's not marketed properly, it's marketed as a designable application platform. But it's not necessarily, it requires a bit of programming knowledge.

The other thing I guess would be whether you want to pay for the licensing cost. There is a price for the K2 environment, does that suit you and your organization? That's something which you need to consider. Finally, K2 is also really hard to find, to be honest, and it comes at a premium so there's that maintenance cost as well or even development costs, which may be a lot higher than any other application that you may use. 

It's given us applications that are stable once you get it right. We haven't had many issues in terms of applications falling over or not responding, things like that. It can be a bit slow if it's database-intensive applications. Again, that could be a mixture of both infrastructure and also K2 application.

I would rate this solution a six out of 10. 

We use Nintex for processing workflows and forms for SharePoint 2010.  Moslty for approval workflows and tracking requests.

One of the processes that we developed was to allow requests for new login accounts. These require managerial as well as HR approval, then it sends workflows after the approval to a lot of different individuals as tasks for them to handle their part of the new user request.

Being able to simply create workflows to handle business processes. It allows us to route approvals to users without human intervention.

Nintex seems to be very server intensive. It is one of the reasons that we are moving to a different product on the SharePoint 2016 platform.

In our company, we have different deals, each with a small number of workflow processes. They were primarily using email for approvals that followed. So, we replaced this with Nintex wherever possible. Through Nintex forms, we were able to customize these as well.  

It has helped us a lot, especially during the initial phase of a project where most of the things are done on paper. From our perspective, you can save at least thirty percent in terms of time spent on manual processes, and documenting approvals and process flows.

We are currently facing a lot of issues with Nintex, and we are trying to move away from this solution. In fact, we have already reduced its usage.

The feature that I found most valuable is the ability to impersonate the users so that high-level access to certain resources can be provided. For example, impersonating the super admin allows you to perform actions that cannot be performed by regular users, and they can be badged with this kind of action set. 

Another thing that I like is the deeper loops, and also deeper schedules so that you can schedule a particular workflow to a particular type.

The timer jobs that we have would never run on time.

If you have a complex workflow, Nintex would just error out of it, without giving a "why" and "where". Error reporting is something that definitely needs improvement because most of the time it would just give a correlation ID or something. If there is a workflow issue then we don't know where it failed.

The Nintext Pause operation causes problems and so do the parallel use cases, so these also need improvement.

In the next version of the software, I would like to see a dashboard of all reports, the workflows that are running and their statuses. That would be helpful.

Initially, the product was very stable, but as our usage grew, the issues also increased. This may be a problem with our environment, but in any case, we are now at a point where we are trying to move away from Nintex.

I would rate the scalability a six out of ten.

We have approximately fifty thousand users, right from the VP to the workshop people.

I would rate their technical support a four out of ten. We never get the right solutions. Most of the time we get generic answers that are not to the point.

Nintex was chosen as the first option.

The initial setup was straightforward. During the trial, I had installed it myself. The installation was not a problem at any time.

The deployment and maintenance team is approximately four people. We have three environments, and four people handle the deployments and batch updates.

We have seen ROI.

We did evaluate other options, with one of them being K2. We had seen a few reviews and consulted with Microsoft as well. Based on everyone's answers we chose Nintex.

This is a good solution for mid-scale deployment and mid-scale usage, but as the usage increases, the issues along with it also increase.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.