We performed a comparison between Appian and OpenText ProVision 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."SAIL (Self-Assembling Interface Layer), a scripting language provided by Appian. It is the equivalent of JS and CSS. It allows creation of complex UIs which are also responsive. With SAIL, we have a single language for both the UI logic and its appearance. UI components can be built as reusable components and used in multiple UI interfaces."
"There is no need to worry about vulnerabilities in the system, because Appian built a secure system."
"Appian's most valuable feature is that we can create end-to-end process workflows with minimum turnaround."
"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."
"Write to Data Store Entity - Saving data in SQL databases is done easily using entities. Entities (CDTs in Appian terminology) define relationships and target schema tables via XSD files."
"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."
"Appian is a very low code platform. It's very easy to learn and use."
"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."
"The stability of the product is very good."
"OpenText ProVision's best feature is the capability to attach a variety of attributes and extract and analyze that information."
"All the features come as part of a standard license."
"Appian could be improved by making it a strict, no-code platform with free-built process packs."
"It would be nice if you could create your own customized apps when the business needed them."
"The product’s pricing could be improved from the developers' perspective."
"What could be improved is more on the front end perspective, like the user interface and the mobile application aspect."
"We would like to see more reduced latency. We would like to make sure that the scale-out factor will be much more as workloads come in."
"Native mobile capabilities or hybrid mobile app capabilities are very limited. Things like offline sync, offline storage, access to smartphone device features, etc. are not supported by the Appian platform yet."
"Something I would like to see improved is an SQL database connection."
"The documentation needs to be improved."
"OpenText ProVision's collaboration management is quite complicated and difficult to use."
"Lacks the ability to have your own in-house developments."
"Integrating with or interfacing with other tools like data management tools would be very helpful."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews while OpenText ProVision is ranked 35th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 3 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while OpenText ProVision is rated 6.4. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText ProVision writes "Good attribute attachment but problems with collaboration". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas OpenText ProVision is most compared with ARIS BPA, Visio, Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect and SAP Signavio Process Manager. See our Appian vs. OpenText ProVision 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.
