"The product has a very good mobile app."
"Compared to other code tools that I've seen, Appian has a more robust rules engine"
"It's a stable product."
"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."
"Appian's most valuable features are the quick time it takes to develop for the market. It's easy and faster than other BPM solutions."
"It has great documentation and excellent community support."
"The initial setup was seamless. We didn't run into any hardships at all."
"The technical support is excellent."
"The best feature is scalability, which allows you to target potential clients worldwide by connecting the application to a local server. This makes the application readily accessible, and the response time will be much better."
"Azure data factory is a good tool."
"Debugging using Application Insights is a valuable feature."
"I like that it's a ready-to-use, out-of-the-box solution that provides all of the necessary functions for customers, such as codes that can be quickly switched from the production version, or from test and DEV versions to production."
"The technical support from Microsoft Azure App Service is good."
"It's a platform as a service, so we don't have to manage the infrastructure to hold the websites."
"There could be a scope of enhancement for capturing the variety of use cases."
"I would like to see more complete university tools. For example, with UiPath, I have had a good experience related to a free course in order to provide some users some different levels of knowledge. This extra training helps users not only use the solution but to develop further within the tool."
"We'd like improved functionality for testing new devices."
"The UI of Appian is more internal. Recently, there has been an addition of an external user portal for the customer-facing stuff. It's still coming out."
"One thing which can be really helpful is that there is some kind of a recorder made available rather than scripting everything."
"Something I would like to see improved is an SQL database connection."
"Lacks business rules management as part of the solution."
"The graphical user interface could be easier to use. It should be simplified."
"The logging and monitoring could improve in Microsoft Azure App Service."
"Lacking somewhat in template data flows."
"The solution needs better integration capabilities on the network side."
"It would be fantastic if Microsoft morphed after my exit service, removing it from subscriptions and moving it to different regions, especially for that service."
"Initially, there were some rare instances when the server went down because it was deployed on Linux."
"If you're on the cloud, you just get a web interface without much detail for additional configuration or the authority to configure the root or system-level configuration."
Appian is ranked 3rd in Rapid Application Development Software with 26 reviews while Microsoft Azure App Service is ranked 11th in Rapid Application Development Software with 6 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Azure App Service is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Easy to develop, low-code, and has a good user interface ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure App Service writes "Good backup and restore, with vertical, horizontal, and DEV scaling options". Appian is most compared with Camunda Platform, ServiceNow, Pega BPM, Microsoft PowerApps and K2, whereas Microsoft Azure App Service is most compared with Microsoft PowerApps, Oracle Application Express (APEX), Pega BPM, ServiceNow and OutSystems. See our Appian vs. Microsoft Azure App Service report.
See our list of best Rapid Application Development Software 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.
