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

Appian vs WorkflowGen 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 Business Process Management (BPM)
8th
Ranking in Process Automation
9th
Ranking in Rapid Application Development Software
13th
Ranking in Low-Code Development Platforms
7th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
65
Ranking in other categories
Process Mining (6th), Business Orchestration and Automation Technologies (10th)
WorkflowGen
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
39th
Ranking in Process Automation
41st
Ranking in Rapid Application Development Software
32nd
Ranking in Low-Code Development Platforms
36th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (27th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Low-Code Development Platforms category, the mindshare of Appian is 3.7%, down from 11.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of WorkflowGen is 1.7%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Low-Code Development Platforms Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Appian3.7%
WorkflowGen1.7%
Other94.6%
Low-Code Development Platforms
 

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.
CO
SAP Solution Lead at Johnson & Johnson
Good for automatically triggering workflows, but needs to be more customizable
We use this product for many different reasons related to our business We use it a lot for creating workflows to transfer materials between plants, which is a signature part of what we do. The most valuable feature is the ability to automatically trigger the workflow. This solution needs to be…

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 good feature because it's simple to use and you can quickly develop the users' interface."
"It is easy for me to define the process and create configurable workflows."
"This is the most complete solution of its kind, dealing with BPM and RPA, AI, case management, and document processing."
"The most valuable features are the low coding and low code data."
"Appian's most valuable features are the quick time it takes to develop for the market. It's easy and faster than other BPM solutions."
"Customer Service: Excellent. Smaller companies like Appian tend to value customer service as a competitive advantage."
"Call Web Service Smart Service - Web service integrations with other systems are super simple and fast to create, supported by low code menus."
"The most valuable feature is business automation."
"It’s easier, more controlled and automatized checks of the budget through this system."
"Took few hours to build workflows with ready-to-use templates, so we had improved productivity."
"We use it a lot for creating workflows to transfer materials between plants, which is a signature part of what we do."
 

Cons

"It is also not easy to learn. Training tutorials could be improved."
"My only request is that they decrease the license costs."
"It is very expensive. It is also not easy to learn."
"If we could calculate the amount of data that will be realized, it would help us a lot."
"I would like to see more features for enterprises. They would also benefit from adding documentation and training on their site."
"Appian could improve their customer-facing initiatives."
"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."
"The reporting is not as good as in similar products. They could also improve the dashboards."
"The reports for users. The reports with more details; we have to generate them by the database."
"This solution needs to be more customizable."
"Yes, for email notification but it could also be with company network."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"It's an enterprise tool and can be used by enterprise only. So it's a very expensive tool."
"The price of this solution is a little high here in Mongolia."
"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."
"I think that if somebody is really serious at looking at business value, then by all means, the product is well worth the value. You get representative business value for the price that you pay for the product, and for the implementation of the product."
"BPM done right is a huge value proposition for almost any company, and with Appian's low code rapid development model, the ROI can be huge, while the break-even point should be accelerated tremendously."
"It's good value for the price."
"The license is not very cheap. It's on the expensive side."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Low-Code Development Platforms solutions are best for your needs.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
16%
Construction Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
7%
 

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
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
Comcast, Deloitte, Mitsui & Co Ltd, Sanofi Pasteur, Textron, XL Group. WorkflowGen accelerates business process adaptability in 70 countries for 500+ organizations and 1,000,000 users.
Find out what your peers are saying about Appian vs. WorkflowGen and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.