We performed a comparison between ARIS Process Governance and OpenText 360 for SharePoint based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Management (BPM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Using this solution we can design our own processor governance, assign some specific technical services, and also run tests of the process to make sure it operates as we need it to."
"It's a very easy-to-use product."
"Ability to use all the features that your catalog has inside the modeling and export it to a BPM augmentation engine."
"The most valuable features are collaboration, traceability, retention of documents, and search."
"It has a lot of flexibility, and Microsoft does come up with some new additions from time to time."
"This solution has good connection and we do not need to migrate everything in order to protect the repository."
"The fact that it allows for the internal sharing of information is very good."
"It's all now on cloud subscription, so you can use all the features without worrying about making the system updates patches."
"We concentrate on the legal industry, such as legal libraries. It's the most structured solution we have used and implemented for five years."
"OpenText 360's best features are platform independence and its performance when searching large numbers of documents."
"In terms of its most valuable features, this solution, in general, will provide all you need and it's very convenient to use. We can share our details to collaborative platforms. We can give access to users. It's pretty flexible."
"The solution uses a coding language for process design that is specific only to this product. We would like to see this changed to something more universal."
"It's a bit annoying that you have to use two environments in the older version."
"There is a lot of complexity around licensing."
"Its licensing needs to be simplified. Currently, its licensing is very complex. It contains a number of pieces, and you have to be an expert in reading all the conditions in the license. They should simplify the licensing and make it easier to understand. It would make a customer's life easier."
"An area for improvement would be how the platform handles large volumes of documents. It also doesn't provide a very good, robust backup and restore capacity. In the next release, I would like the search technology to be improved."
"OpenText 360 is generally stable, though there are sometimes issues with document size or format."
"The user interface could definitely be improved."
"I would like for there to be even more integrations in the next release and I believe that the price could go down a bit."
"We have a very good time to market tool, and the development platform should be made user-friendly. Mostly, it's just support."
"The graphical user interface had to be more user-friendly. It's not as intuitive."
"Integration is an area where the solution lacks."
ARIS Process Governance is ranked 34th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 3 reviews while OpenText 360 for SharePoint is ranked 15th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 13 reviews. ARIS Process Governance is rated 8.0, while OpenText 360 for SharePoint is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of ARIS Process Governance writes "Easy to use, reliable, and simple to expand". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText 360 for SharePoint writes "A great, collaborative environment with scalability for many products". ARIS Process Governance is most compared with , whereas OpenText 360 for SharePoint is most compared with Apache Airflow, IBM BPM, Bizagi, Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) Forms and IBM Business Automation Workflow. See our ARIS Process Governance vs. OpenText 360 for SharePoint report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors.
We monitor all Business Process Management (BPM) 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.
