We performed a comparison between Appian and PagerDuty Operations Cloud based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Process Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Compared to other code tools that I've seen, Appian has a more robust rules engine"
"It has created executable requirements and speeds up the SDLC process greatly."
"It's a stable product."
"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."
"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."
"Good workflow engines that bridge the gaps of processes."
"Technical support is helpful."
"There is no need to worry about vulnerabilities in the system, because Appian built a secure system."
"PagerDuty let us set up rosters based on our shifts. We could assign a hierarchy for how the calls should be escalated and the number of times the call will be transferred between people before it is answered. It makes it easy to access an agent via mobile phone."
"The solution's most valuable features are that it adds each alert as a service, has good scheduling capabilities, and includes the ability to write logic based on texts."
"Alert deduplication and noise reduction for alerts are the major features that I found useful."
"The inbound integrations that PagerDuty provides with most of the DevOps tools are valuable."
"The SMS pages and the mobile application are pretty much the top two features."
"The alerts are immediate in this solution, which allows us to respond to errors quickly."
"The product easily integrates with other solutions."
"It has scaled well for us."
"It would be nice if you could create your own customized apps when the business needed them."
"The performance is pretty good, but the distortions need to be optimized in order for it to work well."
"Appian is easy to set up, but JBoss is complex. JBoss is the application server for running Appian."
"We would like to have more granular control for interface styling."
"Form creation and SAIL proprietary language still basically require programming. The claim a BA type can do everything is hogwash."
"Appian could improve their customer-facing initiatives."
"Something I would like to see improved is an SQL database connection."
"While Appian is generally flexible, it's rigid in some ways. It takes longer to do something that isn't available out of the box."
"PagerDuty could improve the event orchestration by enhancing features, such as easier condition setup inside the orchestration."
"The user interface could be more intuitive."
"The solution does not code all alerts correctly so sometimes you get false positives or multiple alerts for the same issue."
"The biggest area for improvement with PagerDuty is noise suppression. There have been a handful of incidents through our use of PagerDuty over the years where one incident may lead to 30 to 50 pages because you're monitoring all these different things, and each thing is an individual page. There should be the ability to set up paging tiers and group correlations between some of the different pages. That is something that would be really valuable. We should be able to say this one page may have a group or a tree of effective other pages that may tier off of it. So, if you see those pages independently, go ahead and alarm, but if you see this plus that, don't do that."
"It cannot be integrated with our upgraded Jira system."
"PagerDuty's webhooks need some improvement."
"I would like the UI to be more intuitive. I would like to be able to group or color-code the discoveries. When you create a system, you have a listing of all the different configurations. You can list them by teams, but some additional color coding would be helpful. I would break it down by incident controls. In other words, it should be broken down it into response teams and engineering divisions."
"There is room for improvement with the time schedule. The way the schedule currently works is you assign all the team members in one schedule and it automatically spreads them around throughout the schedule... It would be better to be able to edit the schedule and place my team members where I want, or at least to have that option in addition to the automatic process."
Appian is ranked 3rd in Process Automation with 58 reviews while PagerDuty Operations Cloud is ranked 11th in Process Automation with 35 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while PagerDuty Operations Cloud is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of PagerDuty Operations Cloud writes "Effectively generates alerts for incidents, making it suitable for 24/7 monitoring of infrastructure". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas PagerDuty Operations Cloud is most compared with Opsgenie, ServiceNow, JIRA Service Management, Splunk On-Call and Everbridge IT Alerting. See our Appian vs. PagerDuty Operations Cloud report.
See our list of best Process Automation vendors.
We monitor all Process Automation 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.
