We performed a comparison between Appian and IBM Business Automation Workflow based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Management (BPM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The initial setup was seamless. We didn't run into any hardships at all."
"The application life cycle is very clear. I started learning it and giving some workshops to my team. Creating the users and the building is very structured. Documentation is nice and it's easy to learn."
"The product has a very good mobile app."
"It has very flexible adaptation and the ability to save and automate processes."
"The solution has a lot of strong features for the financial industry, it is very easy to use."
"Process culture is making noise inside the organization because now, everybody knows that their time is being monitored."
"The agile manner that we require to create our workflows. This is probably the most critical part of our solution and the time it takes to start processing the solution."
"It provides us with real-time data on all connected systems in terms of how they're integrated with each other and how they are performing in a workflow manner."
"Its interface is well-designed and user-friendly"
"IBM Business Automation Workflow provides a seamless streamlined collaboration within the organizations."
"It gives us the ability to create toolkits and use them across many different applications. It allows us to write things one time, instead of having to write a diary for every single different application. We can write at once and reuse it."
"It performs the basic tasks that are required for the BBM solution as part of the overall integration with ECM or enterprise contact management."
"IBM Business Automation Workflow is useful for helping us design custom user interfaces and processes we require."
"It has integrated UI and deployment models, and it has a deep set of consultant and service provider ecosystem features."
"This is a low-code software where you can just drag and drop on the user interface. There are also a lot of quality integrations such as TMS."
"The solution reduces the time to the resolution which is essential for businesses."
"The tool itself is pretty good, but the main area that we struggled with was the backend. The frontend development is really good, but the backend modeling can be streamlined a little bit. There are good integrations, but tying them through the data layer and then up into the frontend could be improved a little bit. It does read/write on the data source, and you can configure it to just write or just read, but there is a little bit of work involved."
"The graphical user interface could be easier to use. It should be simplified."
"Appian could include other applications that we could reuse for other customers, CRM for example."
"It has it's own built-in UI components and doesn't provide much flexibility to customize or extend those components."
"Architecture of product and scalabiility issues."
"There could be a scope of enhancement for capturing the variety of use cases."
"There are four areas I believe Appian could improve in. The first is a seamless contact center integration. Appian does not have a contact center feature. The second is advanced features in RPA. The third would be chatbot and email bot integration—while Appian comes with chatbot and email bot, it's not as mature as it should be, compared to the competition. The fourth area would be next best action, since there is not much of this sort of feature in Appian. These are all features which competitors' products have, and in a mature manner, whereas Appian lacks on these four areas. I see customers who are moving from Appian to Pega because these features are not in Appian."
"The solution could improve by being more responsive when dealing with large quantities of data. Additionally, they can make the decision or rules engine better. It cannot handle too many rules or too many decisions at once."
"One significant challenge is the lack of accessible forums or resources to seek help or information when problems arise."
"IBM Business Automation Workflow is not a very user-friendly solution."
"Every client is moving to the cloud. We are still a little behind with IBM, but we are catching up from my point of view."
"In terms of improvement, it could be less complex."
"Integrating the solution with existing systems can be complicated and it needs careful planning and execution."
"IBM Business Automation Workflow can improve UI flexibility and integration. Additionally, the solutions from IBM have to provide a paperless solution, allowing for digital versions of documents."
"From what I understand, in the next release they're actually going to combine all of this together as one integrated solution... If we could have one unified way to build a solution, that would really help."
"The setup and installation process could be made easier."
More IBM Business Automation Workflow Pricing and Cost Advice →
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 56 reviews while IBM Business Automation Workflow is ranked 13th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 21 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while IBM Business Automation Workflow is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Business Automation Workflow writes "Good for case management, integration capabilities but lacks stability". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas IBM Business Automation Workflow is most compared with IBM BPM, Camunda, Apache Airflow, AWS Step Functions and Nintex Process Platform. See our Appian vs. IBM Business Automation Workflow report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors.
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.