We performed a comparison between Bizagi and Microsoft Power Apps based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Rapid Application Development Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Its cost is the most valuable. It is not as expensive. It is also easy to make different types of processes for the users."
"BPMN 2.0 compliance, while you model the processes, the system can detect your notation errors."
"It automates a completely manual, complicated process."
"The natural notation is the best feature of Bizagi because it makes it compatible with other products."
"I like the ease of use and the fact that you can download and use their free version, which is unlimited. However, while it's unlimited use, some features aren't available."
"This is a free solution that allows us to create quality visualizations for our company."
"Very, very stable."
"One of the features I like is that when drawing any task, when putting a task on the process model canvas, I can simply click on it and see the other task icons for that task. It's just one quick, simple, straightforward connectivity from task to task."
"It is very easy for us to implement. We have a Microsoft ecosystem, and this solution has many components for integration."
"The features I find the most valuable are the 365 and Microsoft applications integrations and the automation."
"I like the containerization of Azure."
"Of all of the solutions I evaluated, it was the easiest to use and deploy."
"The solution works great and is stable."
"Power Automate has been the most valuable feature."
"When compared with Microsoft Power Automate, it is a bit more mature, and we're able to build things pretty rapidly."
"It is stable and reliable."
"Bizagi needs a way to define categories such as process groups like the APQC framework, PCF, and handle the processes within it."
"The product used to have a simulation feature, which I had used quite often. However, it's since been discontinued. It might have originally been a paid feature. It would be nice if they could bring it back and offer it for free."
"It is difficult to drive ROI on types of processes involving complex business rules."
"Sometimes, when your process is big with multiple lanes, the product will freeze the issue noticed on multiple laptops, not a single PC."
"Its performance needs to be improved. The main thing is that it is limited, especially in terms of the response times. When the processes become a bit large, it is very awkward to work with the Bizagi modeler. When you have already modeled but start to rearrange, it is quite a bit of an effort to change the stuff. When you rearrange lanes or have new structures, it goes rather squiggly up and down and so on, which could be improved. The visual outputs of the DIREPs of the process models are pixelated and have a bad image quality. It is a PNG or JPEG, and you cannot export it as a PDF. When you have rather large processes, you should be able to arrange them hierarchically. Currently, it is not supported. If you use sub-processes and inflate a process, suddenly the arrangement is totally different, and although you know the process, you have to look where is it now. You need a good understanding of the levels of your processes before you start in Bizagi. It can have automatic support for optimal presentation. In BPM, you should have it from the top left to the bottom right. However, in most cases, people don't know how they should arrange it. Therefore, it would be nice to have a suggestion system for different arrangements to be able to better present the process."
"The technical support is not fast enough and should be improved."
"Bizagi's UI should include shorter steps for documenting controls, documenting properties, changing some attributes in the object, and adding additional text."
"In business process mapping, you have pools and dark pools. I don't see that Bizagi differentiates between a regular pool and a dark pool."
"It is not enough user friendly. It also doesn't integrate very well with SQL Server."
"I have heard from developers that there is documentation missing in the reporting."
"It has to improve the threshold limit where it can handle data beyond 5000 items."
"The scalability of the solution could improve."
"In an upcoming release, I would like to see custom APIs, better integration with other solutions, and more connectors available."
"Microsoft should combine both the web and the mobile environment with all of the layers of development into one package."
"The solution could improve by having more connectors for different solutions in a way to create custom connectors. Additionally, they should make HTTP Connectors free again because it was not always a premium feature. These HTTP connectors allow you to send API requests which can be important."
"The solution needs a bit more refinement in general."
Bizagi is ranked 13th in Rapid Application Development Software with 78 reviews while Microsoft Power Apps is ranked 1st in Rapid Application Development Software with 77 reviews. Bizagi is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Power Apps is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Bizagi writes "A flexible, customizable solution that reduced time to market, but the UI and customer support could be better". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Power Apps writes "Low-code, low learning curve, and reduces manpower". Bizagi is most compared with Camunda, Visio, Bonita, ARIS BPA and Appian, whereas Microsoft Power Apps is most compared with Mendix, Oracle Application Express (APEX), ServiceNow, Appian and Zoho Creator. See our Bizagi vs. Microsoft Power Apps report.
See our list of best Rapid Application Development Software vendors and best Low-Code Development Platforms vendors.
We monitor all Rapid Application Development Software 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.