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

Appian vs ServiceNow Orchestration comparison

 

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

Appian
Ranking in Process Automation
7th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
65
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Management (BPM) (9th), Rapid Application Development Software (13th), Low-Code Development Platforms (5th), Process Mining (6th), Business Orchestration and Automation Technologies (5th)
ServiceNow Orchestration
Ranking in Process Automation
14th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Process Automation category, the mindshare of Appian is 4.8%, down from 6.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ServiceNow Orchestration is 2.6%, down from 4.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Process Automation Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Appian4.8%
ServiceNow Orchestration2.6%
Other92.6%
Process Automation
 

Featured Reviews

Shad Bhowmik - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Claude-Yameogo - PeerSpot reviewer
Consultant at a comms service provider with 1,001-5,000 employees
Has helped orchestrate processes and integrate workflows across cloud environments
I recommend ServiceNow Orchestration for larger companies because they have the capability to manage complex environments where it performs better. I promote low-code solutions for these implementations. I don't currently have an idea regarding the pre-built integrations of ServiceNow Orchestration, but I plan to check my area to determine what added value it can bring. I would rate this solution a nine overall.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We appreciate the drag and drop functionality and the easy to access plug and play features."
"The setup is easy."
"It has very flexible adaptation and the ability to save and automate processes."
"The most valuable features are the low coding and low code data."
"The application life cycle is very clear. I started learning it and giving some workshops to my team. Creating the users and the building is very structured. Documentation is nice and it's easy to learn."
"Recently, we added Appian Process Mining, Appian Portals, and now Appian RPA."
"Another advantage of this tool is its reports and records. You can maintain dashboards, layouts. If you with a Java solution, it takes six months time. If you use this tool, you can finish in one or one and a half months' time."
"The valuable features include process automation, Appian Portal, and Appian RPA."
"I would definitely recommend Orchestration if you're already on the ServiceNow platform."
"Employee onboarding, de-boarding, and other service-provision features make the process easier and it saves us a lot of time."
"Provisioning of new systems is among the most impactful features for automating complex workflows with ServiceNow Orchestration."
"There are a lot of ready to use orchestration custom packs."
"It's scalable."
"The data visualization is good."
"This is a user-friendly solution where scripts can be made with ease, and there are many integration options, including Microsoft products, which gives the product a competitive edge."
"I use it to orchestrate processes and integration features to gather and update data during specified timeframes or exchange data in real-time when changes occur based on certain criteria."
 

Cons

"I wouldn't say their response time is long, but it could be quicker."
"What could be improved is more on the front end perspective, like the user interface and the mobile application aspect."
"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."
"If there is a very complex process that includes a lot of data transitioning and memory-centric processes, it consumes a lot of memory."
"The UI of the application has been completely overhauled within the past couple years, but the tools for developing the new interface have not yet been updated."
"I'd like to see the ability of the software itself to integrate with the core systems. It's a gap that Appian hasn't fulfilled."
"You can't really test the software properly without actually buying the license first."
"What could be improved is more on the front end perspective, like the user interface and the mobile application aspect."
"If I compare the interface of ServiceNow Orchestration with Boomi, it is easier to use Boomi than ServiceNow Orchestration."
"The deployment requires awareness among the project staff."
"It is a highly complex platform to work on."
"The automatic remediation needs enhancement, particularly integrating ServiceNow with tools like SolarWinds and Logic Monitor. It is functional, but it needs improvement."
"There is still room for more integrations. Or, it would be nice to bundle multiple products together rather than selling everything as a model as that turns out to be a bit costly."
"We cannot perform GUI automation using the tool."
"From my space, the only thing that I can say is the spinning up with Google Cloud Services."
"We have found some gaps in integration because all of our customers require niche tools."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is high."
"Product pricing compared to some of the earlier vendors, like IBM, CA, and Oracle, is quite well-priced. Although, we do feel that as we increase the number of users and the workload increases, we will have to spend more."
"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."
"It is expensive, but powerful. I would recommend comparing against cheaper licensing products and open source."
"The solution offers a monthly subscription model. That's what we use. I recall it being about $90 a month. They do have different tiers."
"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."
"The cost depends on the number of users, although I recommend taking an unlimited license."
"Appian is very flexible in their pricing. In general, Appian's pricing is much, much lower when compared to competition like Pega or other products. Appian also has a flexible licensing model across geographies. Pega usually goes with a single licensing cost—which is a US-based cost—for all global customers, and it's costly. Whereas Appian has a different regional licensing cost model and it can be cheaper, depending on geography. So Appian's licensing is very flexible, and cheaper when compared to other competition."
"The solution is costly and orchestrations are very expensive."
"In terms of price, this solution is at the higher end of what you'll find."
"It is quite expensive because we've had some customers come back and say it's quite pricey because in order for them to go ahead with Orchestration, they must have already been paying for Discovery, service mapping, and a few other things."
"The cost of the solution is based on the number of plugins, conductors and integrations used and is charged annually. The licensing cause has been increasing gradually which makes it difficult to access. Initially offer free features but over the time the charges rise which make it an expensive solution with limited features. Along with that, the integration issues persist and require additional middle where and internet connectivity for effective usage."
"It is not very expensive."
"ServiceNow doesn't give a clear cost indication. They have different contracts with different organizations and it's all about negotiation, so you don't know how they are doing at the cost level."
"This is an expensive product, but it is the best in the market considering the features and lack of competitors."
"Pricing is custom to every customer."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Process Automation solutions are best for your needs.
894,738 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
23%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Insurance Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise46
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise9
 

Questions from the Community

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 easy plug-and-play options. The initial setup was seamless and very easy to imp...
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. There is a whole section on their company’s website where you can check out the edu...
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 its essence, means it is meant for business users and inexperienced beginners. So...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ServiceNow Orchestration?
The cost of ServiceNow Orchestration is considered medium; it is expensive but powerful. I would rate the pricing experience as a six out of ten.
What needs improvement with ServiceNow Orchestration?
If I compare the interface of ServiceNow Orchestration with Boomi, it is easier to use Boomi than ServiceNow Orchestration. Boomi is an ESB with orchestration features to integrate and exchange dat...
What is your primary use case for ServiceNow Orchestration?
I use ServiceNow Orchestration's third-party integrations, and when I benchmarked ServiceNow Orchestration, I ensured that there are connectors and API capabilities available to integrate it with o...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Appian BPM, Appian AnyWhere, Appian Enterprise BPMS
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Hansard Global plc, Punch Taverns, Pirelli, Crawford & Company, EDP Renewables, Queensland Government Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (, Bank of Tennessee
experian, BEACHBODY, HealthPartners, Banosoft
Find out what your peers are saying about Appian vs. ServiceNow Orchestration and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
894,738 professionals have used our research since 2012.