We performed a comparison between Appian and Nintex Process Platform 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."Process Modeling enables creation of business process workflows. You can create complex business workflows in a visual manner, and it is also easy to debug/monitor."
"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 also has very flexible local integration."
"It reduces development time in half making us more efficient."
"Appian is a very low code platform. It's very easy to learn and use."
"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."
"Appian's most valuable feature is that we can create end-to-end process workflows with minimum turnaround."
"Good workflow engines that bridge the gaps of processes."
"The solution offers very good integration capabilities. We've never had issues integrating it without solutions."
"Out of box connectivity with UiPath."
"K2's best feature is that it can solve complex tasks, issues, and projects with little coding."
"This tool is really helpful in reducing a lot of manual work. Its drag and drop components help to create a workflow faster than SharePoint Workflow Designer."
"Allows to use workflow for simple approvals and LazyApproval. The feature is easy to implement for mobile approval."
"It's easy to learn. However, there is very little content available for the Nintex also, but they are providing their own documentation and all. So, it's easy to learn also."
"The workflow engine of K2 is its main strength. Its workflow engine is probably one of the best, and that's the reason why Nintex bought K2. It can clearly handle any complex process or scenario. K2 is almost low-code. It is a no-code or low-code solution. You don't have to read a whole lot of code. It is pretty much GUI based. Their support is also excellent. The biggest advantage of K2 is SmartObjects, which allow you to separate the data from the application. It is a standalone application that allows you to build a data source from different places, which a lot of other applications also do. It is called SmartObjects technology, which is pretty powerful. If I have data from different applications, such as JD and ServiceNow, I can just create a SmartObject based on a data source and use it. I have some forms that have six, seven, or eight applications in a single form with data from different places."
"It is very easy to create and deploy. I am very happy with how user-friendly Nintex Workflow is."
"We'd like improved functionality for testing new devices."
"Form creation and SAIL proprietary language still basically require programming. The claim a BA type can do everything is hogwash."
"There should be more flexibility for the developers to choose the look and feel of the UI. They should have a better ability to design their widgets and customize them with different colors, shapes, and sizes. That is a limitation that could be improved upon."
"Lacks business rules management as part of the solution."
"If that had more DevOps capabilities, it would be an excellent product."
"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."
"It has it's own built-in UI components and doesn't provide much flexibility to customize or extend those components."
"Lacks integration with other products."
"The product’s support for the mobile platform and its ability to handle artificial loads could be better."
"I would also like to see the BPM features from Pega implemented, that have to do with the implementation of AI, and the robotics."
"We cannot use the same solution on cloud."
"Hawkeye is emerging as a reporting solution, but as a V1 product it’s not very useful yet."
"It is very flexible because you can design your own main forms, but if there were some templates according to your market, it would be more useful for a new customer. That would make K2 more user friendly and easier to use."
"The cost of the solution is high and has room for improvement."
"The management server and the admin page where you can manage processes need improvement."
"The tool lacks to offer support for the Arabic language, and it needs consideration."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews while Nintex Process Platform is ranked 9th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 21 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while Nintex Process Platform is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Nintex Process Platform writes "Offers good integration capabilities and easy to learn and good stability". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and ARIS BPA, whereas Nintex Process Platform is most compared with Camunda, IBM BPM, Pega BPM, SAP Signavio Process Manager and Bizagi. See our Appian vs. Nintex Process Platform report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors and best Process Automation 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.