AgilePoint vs IBM Cloud Pak for Automation comparison

"AgilePoint has improved our organization by making form implementation easier and to plan for future growth."

"The solution's workflows are its most useful feature."

"AgilePoint's automation is excellent in managing different user roles and handling data associated with a particular instance of the workflow."

"AgilePoint's most valuable feature is process management."

"I like the design and the integration capacity. It's also easy to use."

"AgilePoint's automation is excellent in managing different user roles and handling data associated with a particular instance of the workflow."

"The initial setup of AgilePoint was very easy."

"What this product allows us to do is to move from on-prem instances where we are running independent instances of FileNet, Datacap, and ODM. It allows us to leverage container-based resiliency and availability modeling so that we have some visibility across the CP4BA ecosystem. We're now migrating all of our data to be in the Cloud Object Storage, and we can now use some of the features of Azure in terms of how we store and retrieve content for our members and our providers."

"I believe two significant features of IBM Cloud Pak for Automation are the focus on SLA management and the capability to handle parallel instances effectively. Parallel instances, for instance, are valuable when dealing with a large number of users, enabling tasks to be performed concurrently for efficient system operation. The SLA aspect is crucial for tracking and ensuring timely completion of tasks. Additionally, the cloud compatibility of IBM BAW allows for seamless migration from on-premises to the cloud. This version also includes a business rule management system for storing and managing business rules effectively."

"They should add more information about functionality."

"Integrations and customizations should be improved in AgilePoint and other low-code solutions."

"Integrations and customizations should be improved in AgilePoint and other low-code solutions."

"While the platform is good and it has a lot of options, I would like to see more alternative features in future versions such as connectors to IDM. Currently, they have only ADFS and Okta."

"It could be more flexible, but it's already a good solution for the designer."

"The solution should be able to support Docker. This would help make scalability easier."

"Some issues with AgilePoint's design, AI and UX are some of the major problems we deal with when handling our company's business models or processes."

"One of the challenges we're having is finding vendors who have experience in developing on the cloud. We can find developers on the old platform, but it is leading-edge technology. So, we are having some challenges, and IBM is assisting us to find vendor partners. To be able to leverage all the capabilities of the new platform, we have to upgrade our existing ecosystem of FileNet applications. Upgrading to the new platform while trying to modernize is always challenging because it is like you have a moving target."

"I believe there is room for improvement in the user interface, particularly in the Process Portal that customers use to view and manage their tasks. The UI of the Process Portal needs enhancement. Additionally, in the next release, I would like to see improved compatibility with Angular, allowing for direct integration with front-end systems. It would be beneficial to have built-in GUI features based on Angular within the system, rather than developing separate applications externally. This, in turn, would provide a more seamless and enhanced front-end experience."

"Price-wise, AgilePoint is a cheap tool and a standard application for running analytics in an IT environment."

"It is more cost-effective than local tools."

"I think the price is reasonable."

"I believe the pricing has changed recently. We had purchased one license per server, and it was about $2,000. It was a one-time payment. It's possible that they have recently implemented a new cost structure and now have yearly subscriptions."

"IBM Cloud Pak for Automation is relatively expensive, especially considering it is designed for long-living processes, not for normal automation needs. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the pricing at around 9. There are no additional costs beyond the standard licensing fees, but IBM has multiple pricing models that make it expensive in its own way. Different plans are available, but overall, the experience suggests it is a costly solution."

"Its cost is almost the same or comparable to what we pay with FileNet, but I'm not sure what we pay a year. A good part of CP4BA is the CPU-based licensing model. When we're dealing with 50,000 dentists, for example, if we were to use Salesforce, we would be hit with the licensing of 50,000 dentists, whereas when we build out in CP4BA, it is just based on our CPU usage, not on individual licenses."