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

Appian vs WaveMaker 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 Rapid Application Development Software
13th
Ranking in Low-Code Development Platforms
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
65
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Management (BPM) (9th), Process Automation (7th), Process Mining (6th), Business Orchestration and Automation Technologies (5th)
WaveMaker
Ranking in Rapid Application Development Software
32nd
Ranking in Low-Code Development Platforms
31st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Rapid Application Development Software category, the mindshare of Appian is 4.3%, down from 9.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of WaveMaker is 1.4%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Rapid Application Development Software Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Appian4.3%
WaveMaker1.4%
Other94.3%
Rapid Application Development Software
 

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.
it_user576294 - PeerSpot reviewer
Business Software Developer at a tech services company
This is a RAD tool to build business apps, tables, and forms.
It needs a desktop version for developers with license type CE. I would like to have the possibility to have a CE that lets me migrate from SQL Server Express, Access, and OpenOffice Base and keep all UI front-end development in just one system. In short, the 6.7 was good enough. The question is: Will there always be a desktop version CE that will let me work with, for example, five users for free, and then start to pay from user six, or in my case, three users? Right now, I do not see WaveMaker in this field, and there are others points to ask for from a desktop.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"What stands out are the speed of the product, the quick, easy development, and visual diagramming."
"Good workflow engines that bridge the gaps of processes."
"Where Appian stood out was the full stack integration."
"With Appian's low code rapid development model, the ROI can be huge, while the break-even point should be accelerated tremendously."
"The agile manner that we require to create our workflows is probably the most critical part of our solution and the time it takes to start processing the solution is also quite fast."
"Technical support has been amazing overall."
"Process Modeling enables creation of business process workflows. You can create complex business workflows in a visual manner, and it is also easy to debug/monitor."
"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."
"It is a Rapid Application Development (RAD) tool to build business apps that lets you work with many diverse data stores and build tables and forms easily."
 

Cons

"The UI of Appian is more internal."
"I would like to see more enhancement in the user interface to allow more freedom in designing the sites and pages."
"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."
"Sometimes, clients expect us to implement ERP using Appian, which is very complicated. In such cases, I don't believe that Appian is a good tool for that."
"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."
"The graphical user interface could be easier to use. It should be simplified."
"I wouldn't say their response time is long, but it could be quicker."
"​Appian is easy to set up, but JBoss is complex. JBoss is the application server for running Appian."
"It needs a desktop version for developers with license type CE."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The license is not very cheap. It's on the expensive side."
"I'm sure it is cost-effective, but right now, we're just toying around with it. So, I don't have any hard numbers."
"The tool is quite costly."
"Licensing of Appian is less expensive when compared to other BPMs in the market."
"When it comes to pricing, it's definitely not affordable. However, it really depends on the requirements that you're seeking from the solution."
"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 is expensive, but powerful. I would recommend comparing against cheaper licensing products and open source."
"The price is high."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Rapid Application Development Software solutions are best for your needs.
894,668 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%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise46
No data available
 

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Appian BPM, Appian AnyWhere, Appian Enterprise BPMS
Pramati
 

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
Vanenburg, Flanagan
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, ServiceNow, Oracle and others in Rapid Application Development Software. Updated: April 2026.
894,668 professionals have used our research since 2012.