No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Appian vs ProcessMaker comparison

Why PeerSpot?
Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 25, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Automation Anywhere
Sponsored
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
2nd
Ranking in Business Orchestration and Automation Technologies
2nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
668
Ranking in other categories
Robotic Process Automation (RPA) (2nd), Process Mining (1st), Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) (1st), Agentic Automation (1st), AI Legal & Compliance (1st), AI Finance & Accounting (2nd), AI Procurement & Supply Chain (1st)
Appian
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
6th
Ranking in Business Orchestration and Automation Technologies
14th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
66
Ranking in other categories
Process Automation (5th), Rapid Application Development Software (14th), Low-Code Development Platforms (8th), Process Mining (6th)
ProcessMaker
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
39th
Ranking in Business Orchestration and Automation Technologies
31st
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Business Process Management (BPM) category, the mindshare of Automation Anywhere is 1.0%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Appian is 3.3%, down from 4.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ProcessMaker is 0.9%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Management (BPM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Automation Anywhere1.0%
Appian3.3%
ProcessMaker0.9%
Other94.8%
Business Process Management (BPM)
 

Featured Reviews

Nadeem K. - PeerSpot reviewer
Rpa Developer at a consultancy with 11-50 employees
Automation has freed teams from repetitive finance and supply tasks and supports global operations
In the current organization, we had trouble initially because I think the documentation and support could be better than what it is now. This is one difference between Automation Anywhere and other RPA tools such as UiPath. In UiPath, if you have an issue, you go to the UiPath website and search for it, and you get lots of help materials. In Automation Anywhere, you do not get exactly what you are looking for. You get a very large number of results when you search for something, and from this large result set, you have to filter out what you need, or only partial information will be available. User handbooks are available for each product. In that regard, I would say Automation Anywhere is lagging compared to other RPA tools. It is difficult to get hold of their customer support team. I want to clarify that it is not a matter of us building logic on Automation Anywhere and it failing. When it is a product-related issue, they have to give us support because we only know how to develop within Automation Anywhere. We do not know how to fix Automation Anywhere itself. Whenever we have an issue, trying to get in touch with them always takes three to four business days.
SB
Finance Specialist at a government with 5,001-10,000 employees
Automated remittance workflows have boosted speed and accuracy but still need geo-tagging improvements
Remittance is a crucial part of my integral operation, so any disruption would majorly impact our clients. After switching to Appian, we never faced any disruption as it is reliable and we can generate data at any point in time, quite faster than other tools in my personal opinion. Regulators can ask for data from us at any time, and with Appian, we download data from our Appian tools to share it with them whenever they ask. I would share a real-life example: a customer's transaction processed more than a year ago. Suddenly the customer came back asking for all the details. In our previous tool, it was quite difficult to generate transaction details from over a year ago; however, while using Appian, we can pull up data using different key search fields, such as a customer's cell phone number, remittance tracking number, or MT103 reference number. We shared it with the customer instantly, and the customer was surprised we could provide all the details in such a short time. It added reputational value for our organization, thanks to Appian.You have pointed out two major things: time-saving and reduction of error, which are key points while processing remittance. Previously, while using another tool, it was quite time-consuming to process remittance, but after switching to Appian, it can extract data from MT103, eliminating the need for manual data entry. The process has become fully automated. Previously we could process only five to ten transactions within an hour, but now, after switching to Appian, we can process about 100 transactions in an hour, making it 10 times faster. In terms of error detection, since Appian extracts data from MT103, the extraction rate is quite good, and the error rate is negligible, lower than 0.001%. We can share accurate, error-free data with the regulator, which is essential for us. Appian benefits us significantly. After receiving an MT103, we check what the remitter is, the amount, if it is under threshold for processing, and if it is from a high-priority remitter or client. Since Appian extracts data from MT103 messages and identifies top-level clients from the database, it can notify us to process their transactions with priority. Due to automated data extraction, there are fewer instances of error. In our previous tool, we reported regulatory data to the central bank manually and often received complaints about invalid purpose codes due to manual data entry. Appian handles this automatically, and after switching, our error rate has dropped significantly, resulting in positive feedback from the Central Bank of Bangladesh regarding our reduced error rates. This has greatly enhanced our organization's reputation. Appian is fully on-premises, and we have our own system.
Uchechi-Sylvanus - PeerSpot reviewer
Head Of IT at Cedric Masters Ltd
Works well, but its interface should be a bit more user-friendly
We use it for our process flows and levels of approvals, but I am not managing it directly Its performance, stability, and security are fine. Its interface should be a bit more user-friendly. I have been using this solution for close to a year. It is stable. It is easy to scale. We currently…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The interface is a lot better than a lot of other tools which are out there."
"Since it can be utilized 24/7, the ROI is pretty high with minimal efforts and resources by using unattended automation."
"The most valuable feature is the power of AI Technologies involved in Automation Anywhere's IQBot - such as Natural Language Processing, Computer Vision, Fuzzy Logic, and Machine Learning."
"Automation Anywhere is a great tool."
"I have been using Automation Anywhere for the past five years and it is one of the best tools to automate manual tasks."
"It is easy to use for non-technical people, with a simple drag-and-drop interface, so they don't need to be technically savvy to automate their processes."
"The bot creation process is simple and useful. Whatever you need to do, it is there. If there is something else, there are the MetaBot functions."
"One of the features that we have used the most is an action in the Workbench called Object Cloning. We find that very reliable and very useful for implementing different business processes."
"The initial setup is easy."
"Appian is a stable product and works very well."
"The initial setup was seamless. We didn't run into any hardships at all."
"The most productive aspect of Appian lies in its ability to develop interfaces, particularly user interfaces. Creating user interfaces is highly productive, when these interfaces are integrated with the original database. In such cases, using record types proves to be a very efficient method of handling data. The synergy between interfaces and record types enhances productivity."
"The features I find most valuable in Appian are the IDP and the Composer."
"Appian helps you do a lot of things. It's easy to configure and build an application platform, and it offers a lot of features that you find in an RPA solution. It's flexible so you can reuse it for a variety of use cases."
"It's a stable product."
"The solution's most valuable features are the regular periodic and quarterly updates, they are very useful updates. They keep improving the solution more often, and that helps the platform or code always be up to date with the latest features."
"Its performance, stability, and security are fine."
"What I like most is the seamlessness of the workflow capabilities."
 

Cons

"One thing I learned with Co-Pilot is that it is very static. For instance, when dealing with tables and their headers, I must program them in a form. If my build changes, I have to return to my form and update the table titles. Features like looping are missing from Co-Pilot."
"IQ Bot is bad and needs a lot of tweaking."
"Our users would like more online community forums where they can exchange information. I would also like a better way to monitor and manage all the automations we have running within our systems because our CoE governance must be robust so we are always aware of what's happening."
"One day, there will be a message box saying that the application is down or not available on a weekend. The instructions will say read the information and click, "Okay." But a bot doesn't understand the instructions because it is not the IQ system."
"As a developer or user, I feel that the performance of the overall package could be made a little better or reliable."
"When I compare Automation Anywhere with the competition, some of the competitors have ready-made, off-the-shelf modules. For example, UiPath integrates with Windows AD. That is missing as of now in Automation Anywhere. If that became available it would also be great."
"The support and user community need improvement."
"Automation Anywhere should have more Excel-related functionality."
"Architecture of product and scalabiility issues."
"What could be improved is more on the front end perspective, like the user interface and the mobile application aspect."
"The reporting is not as good as in similar products. They could also improve the dashboards."
"I see customers who are moving from Appian to Pega because these features are not in Appian."
"One room for improvement is the ease of UI UX development, like in OutSystems and Mendix."
"It has it's own built-in UI components and doesn't provide much flexibility to customize or extend those components."
"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."
"Newer features, especially in terms of scalability, have to become more scalable than what it is today, and it needs better integration with our existing application ecosystem."
"Its interface should be a bit more user-friendly."
"This solution only supports basic text, but we would like to be able to insert components such as rich text, graphs, charts, pictures, and other objects."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We were required to purchase licenses and bot runners, which determined the permissible run times for the bots."
"We have saved a lot of money on taxes based on the stuff that we run."
"The control room access gives the ability to create different roles, which helps when purchasing additional licensing."
"Automation Anywhere is expensive."
"The cost is anywhere between $10,000 and $100,000."
"Our costs are approximately between $5,000 to $10,000 per license."
"Automation Anywhere might have a higher upfront cost than some competitors, but its extensive features and seamless integration with other tools can save organizations money in the long run."
"It is not too expensive, but there are many tools available in the market that can provide the same functionality at a cheaper price."
"You can't really test the software properly without actually buying the license first."
"The cost is calculated on a per-user basis. It might be expensive for small and mid-sized enterprises."
"The licensing will be on a monthly basis. We are estimating that cost to be around $2000 to maybe $3,000 per month. We don't foresee any costs above that."
"The price is high."
"The price of the solution is reasonable and is paid annually. The price of the solution depends on how many users use the solution. It can range from $50,000 to $200,000. For example, for 20,000 users the price can be approximately $200,000."
"More flexibility in the licensing model is still needed because initially there were customers who are looking at only one or two use cases of business areas, but now the business areas are changing and there is a larger scope. One license model may not fit everyone. They need to be a little more flexible on the licensing model."
"It's an enterprise tool and can be used by enterprise only. So it's a very expensive tool."
"The tool is quite costly."
"We have a yearly license."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Management (BPM) solutions are best for your needs.
921,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
14%
Comms Service Provider
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Construction Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business162
Midsize Enterprise86
Large Enterprise566
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise47
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

How good is Automation Anywhere for RPA processes?
It depends on your use case. Is it simply to automate a couple of processes? Is it to augment a human team? AA is ver...
How good is Automation Anywhere for RPA processes?
From my experience using AA tool, it depends on the applications that you want to automate, because there some applic...
How good is Automation Anywhere for RPA processes?
It is a highly preferred RPA tool. You can check my Automation Anywhere Review to know more.
Which do you prefer - Appian or Camunda Platform?
Appian is fast when building simple to medium solutions. This solution offers simple drag-and-drop functionality with...
Is Appian a suitable solution for beginners who have no additional preparation?
Appian is actually pretty big on educating its users, including with courses that reward you with certifications. The...
Is it easy to set up Appian or did you have to resort to professional help?
We had some issues when we were setting up Appian. It was quite surprising, since this is a low-code tool which, in i...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Automation Anywhere, Testing Anywhere, Automation Anywhere Enterprise, Agentic Process Automation System (Now Certified for WorkSpaces)
Appian BPM, Appian AnyWhere, Appian Enterprise BPMS
ProcessMaker Workflow Management & BPM, ProcessMaker BPM
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Google, Linkedin, Cisco, Juniper Networks, DellEMC, Comcast, Mastercard, Quest Diagnostics
Hansard Global plc, Punch Taverns, Pirelli, Crawford & Company, EDP Renewables, Queensland Government Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (, Bank of Tennessee
Tulsa Community College, Sirius College, Mcredit Vietnam, Oregon City Schools, Lakozy Toyota, HyperCube
Find out what your peers are saying about Appian vs. ProcessMaker and other solutions. Updated: October 2026.
921,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.