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

AuraQuantic vs Microsoft System Center Orchestrator comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 2024

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

AuraQuantic
Ranking in Process Automation
17th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Management (BPM) (17th), Low-Code Development Platforms (21st), No-Code Development Platforms (9th), Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) (15th), Business Orchestration and Automation Technologies (22nd)
Microsoft System Center Orc...
Ranking in Process Automation
34th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Process Automation category, the mindshare of AuraQuantic is 1.4%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft System Center Orchestrator is 1.2%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Process Automation Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
AuraQuantic1.4%
Microsoft System Center Orchestrator1.2%
Other97.4%
Process Automation
 

Featured Reviews

Emilio Valle - PeerSpot reviewer
Programmer at Banco de Guatemala
Responsive support, easy to use, and reliable
It helped a lot when we started using it with more images. Before, it was basic. With images, it's more effective. Users consider it more animated and user-friendly. We can easily track a process and know exactly where a process is. It's a low-code application. The solution is very easy to use. It is stable and reliable. The solution scales well. Technical support is extremely responsive.
Dan Campeanu - PeerSpot reviewer
Security Engineer at ProVision
Automates tasks and manages multiple servers from a central location
The initial setup was quite complex. It required careful preparation of installation steps, as many tasks were not automated as expected. Special attention was needed to prepare groups, users, and permissions at each step to ensure a smooth setup process. Please do so accurately to avoid having to start over. Challenges encountered during deployment included issues with installation and configuration and difficulties detecting machines and executing tasks as expected. Some solutions were found through trial and error during installation, while others were discovered through recommendations from other users. Despite these challenges, the deployment and rollout of Orchestrator took approximately one and a half months to ensure proper functionality.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It's a low-code application."
"AuraQuantic's technical support is very good - they work well with partners and follow up on everything."
"AuraQuantic's most valuable features are the zero code, user-friendly mode, and integration."
"AuraPortal provides several solutions embedded into one single platform that provides unbroken services to resolve almost any type of process for almost any industry segment."
"I chose AuraPortal due to its capabilities for implementing BPM solutions with limited programming skills, as interfaces can be developed very fast and the cycle time for developing applications or integration between different systems can be improved by 70-80%."
"AuraPortal is a beautiful solution for any company because you can do everything you want."
"AuraPortal is very user-friendly and flexible; it's really interesting for me, and I'm focusing on this application and BPM because it's really complete."
"AuraPortal is very user-friendly and flexible."
"It can manage multiple servers and workstations from a single location."
"Automation is the most valuable feature of the solution."
 

Cons

"There should be a more affordable consulting pricing."
"One thing that could be improved would be for it to be deployed in a shorter time."
"More documentation and the ability to extract different reports about different relations in the objects I use will help."
"The price could be better. It's quite expensive."
"AuraQuantic's price could be improved."
"We'd like it more animated. It would be useful if we could integrate GIFs, for example."
"I would like to see support for Unix, Oracle and other RDBMS."
"The product's management aspect needs enhancement."
"I find the Orchestrator UI to be problematic."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price could be better. It's quite expensive."
"I give the cost of the solution a five out of ten."
"We obtained a license that bundled Windows Server with System Center at no additional cost."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Process Automation solutions are best for your needs.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Construction Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
No data available
 

Also Known As

No data available
MS System Center Orchestrator
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Nissan, RSA Chile, New Millennia Group Plc (UK), TOYOTA, ArcelorMittal Brasil, KPN, Farmacia Luis Corbi, Farmacia del Paseo, Frutas Bean, IncAE Business School, BDO Argentina, Refinery of the Pacific, Balfego Grup, Fundacion Seneca, Technological Institute Maranosa, Coprusa Group, Constructec, University of Deusto, Tenco Shopping Centers, Spanish Railways Foundation, Arbora & Ausonia.
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about AuraQuantic vs. Microsoft System Center Orchestrator and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.