We performed a comparison between Appian and MEGA HOPEX based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Apache, Pega and others in Business Process Management (BPM)."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."
"Rapid development with low-code makes it easier to quickly get apps implemented and the time to break-even and ROI is much faster."
"With low-code, we don't need a lot of coding, and then from the plumbing perspective, there is a complete CI/CD pipeline that exists within Appian that can be leveraged for open deployment."
"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 tech support is quite good."
"The solution has a lot of strong features for the financial industry, it is very easy to use."
"Technical support is helpful."
"We use the portfolio management feature heavily."
"The most valuable feature for this solution is the automatic updating and propagation of changes across the system."
"The solution is scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it's completely possible to do so."
"The support experience in Latin America is great."
"The main feature I find crucial in MEGA HOPEX is the catalog view, which provides a comprehensive visualization of all artifacts in one repository. Another valuable aspect is the availability of out-of-the-box outcomes, such as strategy maps and BPA models, eliminating the need for additional configuration. MEGA HOPEX allows users to focus on specific business areas, like risk management or data governance, providing a high-level overview while enabling deep dives into specific areas of interest. For risk management, MEGA HOPEX allows users to assess impacts, create recovery plans, and track action plans."
"HOPEX has a panel that offers various views. I think that is very good. MEGA has an app for integrating with a lot of apps. We help our clients integrate HOPEX with a different product like Apple Gateway, for example. I've been with the company for 15 years, and we connect with everything. Our clientele includes almost all of the banks in Mexico."
"An advantage is its accessibility."
"The most valuable feature is the completeness of HOPEX's meta-model. It's a strong meta-model that's rigid but comprehensive. It's a logical fit for our understanding of how we want things modeled in our database."
"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."
"Form creation and SAIL proprietary language still basically require programming. The claim a BA type can do everything is hogwash."
"It would be useful if they could create an academy or forum in the future to help active users answer questions they have about the solution."
"The product’s pricing could be improved from the developers' perspective."
"The solution could improve robotic process automation."
"The graphical user interface could be easier to use. It should be simplified."
"Occasionally, certain pre-made modules may not be necessary and customers may desire greater customization options. Instead of being limited to pre-designed features, they may prefer a more flexible version that allows for greater customization."
"Even though the company has made great improvements in online documentation, featuring rich material which includes case studies of real-life use cases, the material could definitely be better in quality and coverage of use cases."
"MEGA HOPEX's problem is that it is expensive, but it's a fantastic tool."
"In my experience, I've encountered difficulties with consuming custom packages in MEGA HOPEX, which leads to redundant work when deploying them to production. This is an area where improvement is needed. While version six offers better UI and UX, resolving this issue should be a priority. I believe it's important to fully explore MEGA HOPEX's capabilities before suggesting new ones."
"The product must improve integration with other tools."
"The tool's UI should be more user-friendly."
"Needs a friendlier import/export to other modeling tools."
"The initial setup can be quite complex at first."
"This product is expensive and would be improved by lowering its price."
"Lacking more out of the box integrations."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews while MEGA HOPEX is ranked 5th in Enterprise Architecture Management with 36 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while MEGA HOPEX is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of MEGA HOPEX writes "Easy to use and robust with good features". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas MEGA HOPEX is most compared with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, LeanIX, ARIS BPA, Avolution ABACUS and Visio.
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.
