We performed a comparison between Appian and OpenText AppWorks 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."It has very flexible adaptation and the ability to save and automate processes."
"Rapid development with low-code makes it easier to quickly get apps implemented and the time to break-even and ROI is much faster."
"Even with an on-premise implementation, the scalability is still high, so it is easy to scale up."
"This is the most complete solution of its kind."
"Appian is a very low code platform. It's very easy to learn and use."
"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."
"The most valuable features are the low coding and low code data."
"It reduces development time in half making us more efficient."
"The monitoring aspect is highly valuable, as it offers an exceptional capability to track every minute of action performed by a business user in the global context."
"In terms of the scalability and the handling of complexity, the customers are satisfied, and we also have confidence in the solution to achieve whatever implementations are required."
"AppWorks is a very quick development platform with low-coding capability and strong integration with third-party systems."
"From a business perspective, the most valuable aspect lies in the optimization of processes."
"OpenText AppWorks has standard features such as system-to-system and human-to-human integrations, but what I find most valuable in the solution is its monitoring feature that tells you more about your processes, how to restart and how to stop each process, etc."
"We've automated several processes, including purchase requisition to purchase orders, RFQ processes, vendor onboarding, project budgeting, and business case creation. The recent versions of OpenText AppWorks, especially those incorporating low-code functionalities, have had a significant positive impact. In some cases, we've observed a remarkable reduction in development time, ranging from 50 to 75 percent. The MTP model and life cycle have facilitated rapid development cycles."
"We really appreciate the process automation and how can you create human tasks as one of your processes."
"One of the most useful features is the code is customizable, we can make it our own."
"Something I would like to see improved is an SQL database connection."
"The reporting is not as good as in similar products. They could also improve the dashboards."
"The performance is pretty good, but the distortions need to be optimized in order for it to work well."
"The graphical user interface could be easier to use. It should be simplified."
"Appian is easy to set up, but JBoss is complex. JBoss is the application server for running Appian."
"We have clients that want to use Office 365, Microsoft Analytics, and Power Apps. Appian just isn't the same as using something specifically designed to cater to the Microsoft Suite."
"Appian could be improved by making it a strict, no-code platform with free-built process packs."
"I would like to see more features for enterprises. They would also benefit from adding documentation and training on their site."
"OpenText AppWork's low-code capabilities can be enhanced by integrating them with AI offerings like Aviator."
"The solution needs to continue to enhance the low-coding feature within the product itself."
"The integration could improve."
"There could be some improvements with the low code design part. It could be more customizable and more user friendly."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing structure."
"A room for improvement in OpenText AppWorks is its user interface. It should have mobile compatibility because right now, you still have to make two applications with a user interface for Android and a user interface for iOS, so if OpenText AppWorks can provide one UI that can be used across all devices, that would make the solution better. An additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of OpenText AppWorks is a better UI in terms of the look and feel. Another feature I'd like to see in the next version of the solution is mobile compatibility because, at the moment, you have to make your application mobile-ready or compatible with mobile devices because there's no provision for it in OpenText AppWorks."
"The crucial missing element is the archival function."
"AppWorks could be improved by including BPM simulation."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews while OpenText AppWorks is ranked 16th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 8 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while OpenText AppWorks 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 OpenText AppWorks writes "Automates processes like purchase requisition to purchase orders, RFQ processes, vendor onboarding, project budgeting, and business case creation". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas OpenText AppWorks is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, ServiceNow Now Platform, OutSystems, Mendix and Pega BPM. See our Appian vs. OpenText AppWorks 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.