We performed a comparison between Adobe ColdFusion and Appian based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Rapid Application Development Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The ability to write SQL queries was very helpful as we did not need to bother our DBAs in writing stored procedures for simple tasks."
"Apart from providing a mature, reliable, consistent platform, Adobe also offers outstanding customer service and product support."
"My client has been able to improve productivity with the use of the tool. The solution has them develop several tools that addressed their specific needs. They have become more efficient and safe with the use of the product."
"This tool was very easy learn, yet powerful enough to manage many sites on a single instance."
"No need to import libraries from outside the environment."
"We save enormous amounts of time in development using this tool."
"I find it to be the easiest server-side technology for website development. It easily integrates with virtually everything– from web APIs to NoSQL databases to RSS and XML services."
"I would like to say that its best feature is its different kinds of connectors. We have lots of in-built connectors."
"Appian has many valuable features, the first being the ease of development—rapid development. Second, the process of learning the product and tool is faster when compared to its peers in the market. It's closer to low-code, and while it's still not very easy, it's more low-code than other products in the industry. Appian has a good user interface, a seamless model user interface, which comes without additional coding. It can also integrate with multiple systems."
"It has created executable requirements and speeds up the SDLC process greatly."
"The initial setup was seamless. We didn't run into any hardships at all."
"It's heavy on business processing in terms of logic, process workflows, and primarily on the process design modeler. Appian is really great at that. In terms of the full stack set from a low-code platform perspective, it's definitely an eye opener since it can be deployed via mobile app and on the web as well."
"In terms of interface, it's very good. In terms of infrastructure, it's amazing and already using multiple tools behind the scenes. It's a low-code platform, so it's very easy to implement."
"It's a stable product."
"What stands out are the speed of the product, the quick, easy development, and visual diagramming."
"Good workflow engines that bridge the gaps of processes."
"Need to be able to Be able to inject Python, Java, Groovy, or PHP code into a CFML page."
"ColdFusion’s third-party authentication is currently limited to just a couple of companies, like Google and Facebook, and a few third-party SAML authenticators. From my personal perspective, adding LinkedIn and Microsoft would greatly benefit me."
"Previously when I was trying to create some data, it was very difficult to get real-time data from Workfront."
"The solution needs to improve its adaption capability with a third-party company. I want to see more communities or open knowledge resources with the tool."
"Installation of the server software was formidable due the number of configurable options."
"There is not much third party authenticators in this solution"
"They should provide more flexibility so designers can create a more picture perfect device."
"There is no UI customization possible."
"The solution needs more features. For example, a way to connect to our viewing database, to record, and more interface and component design."
"Appian could be improved by making it a strict, no-code platform with free-built process packs."
"A point of improvement would be the SAIL forms. The built-in tool used to generate forms does not have debugging support (to view local variables as they change on live preview, and step-by-step valuation) which is a big drawback for form development. Moreover, the script language used to build SAIL forms does not support inheritance or lambda expressions (functions as arguments of other functions), which makes the code base more verbose."
"Appian is easy to set up, but JBoss is complex. JBoss is the application server for running Appian."
"There could be a scope of enhancement for capturing the variety of use cases."
"Architecture of product and scalabiility issues."
Adobe ColdFusion is ranked 20th in Rapid Application Development Software with 6 reviews while Appian is ranked 6th in Rapid Application Development Software with 56 reviews. Adobe ColdFusion is rated 8.6, while Appian is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Adobe ColdFusion writes "An easy-to-setup tool that can be used to automate repetitive tasks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". Adobe ColdFusion is most compared with Microsoft Azure App Service, Oracle Application Express (APEX), Microsoft Power Apps, ServiceNow and GitHub CoPilot, whereas Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM. See our Adobe ColdFusion vs. Appian report.
See our list of best Rapid Application Development Software vendors and best Low-Code Development Platforms vendors.
We monitor all Rapid Application Development Software 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.