We performed a comparison between CA Process Automation and Pega BPM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Pega, Appian and others in Process Automation."This tool is used in my organization for automating IT infrastructure related incidents or service requests."
"It is easy to debug and troubleshoot."
"The robotic process automation has increased the confidence of business users."
"Case Management, as well as Workflow Automation, are Pega's most powerful capabilities."
"There is a feature to accelerate the development so that business analysts can directly create their user stories and assign the task to the developers."
"In general, we use web services to integrate this solution with our other tools. It is the main approach we use with this solution and it integrates with all tools that we need. If you want to integrate with other solutions such ThreatFire or similar, it is possible as well."
"Pega BPM's most valuable feature is the use of CDX to solve problems."
"Scalable and stable BPM software with a powerful case management feature. It also has good workflow."
"Pega BPM has a full suite for any enterprise. It is a process orchestration platform. It has detailed features for case management and workflows."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"Somehow the product group within CA left the product dry from some regular expression functionality."
"OCR capability should be added as a feature."
"It needs auto-triggering of workflows based on machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI)."
"Make some of the features more open source that way developers can have more flexibility."
"It is scalable, but it also interacts with a lot of other systems. I think they thought that the interface to other systems, legacy systems, was its strength, but when problems do occur, quickly diagnosing those problems has been a challenge."
"Lack of stronger cloud support is somewhat inconvenient for users and implementation."
"We need more light retail BPM tools within the Pega system. However, Pega is mostly for big companies."
"There are some UX shortcomings within the solution. However, it's my understanding that they have addressed them and in the next three months they will come out with a new updated version. They will be moving away from HTML5."
"Currently, there isn't any feature I want to be added in the next release of Pega BPM because Pega always adds new features that my team welcomes and looks forward to learning. One area for improvement in the solution is the long learning curve, but after that, you'll find Pega BPM easy to use."
"It's called a local platform but on the other hand, it needs a lot of experience. It's not all that easy to click and plug and play. If you really want to use all the features out of this platform, you definitely need a lot of experience and a lot of training to get there."
"In the next release of Pega BPM, they should add more ways to do the customer interaction fields in the portals."
"Pega BPM could improve the UI, it is poorly designed to have a good UX experience."
Earn 20 points
CA Process Automation is ranked 30th in Process Automation while Pega BPM is ranked 2nd in Process Automation with 55 reviews. CA Process Automation is rated 8.6, while Pega BPM is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of CA Process Automation writes "Provides the ability to import objects as new versions of existing objects and to make the prior version the current version". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pega BPM writes "Low code with great APIs and good flexibility". CA Process Automation is most compared with BMC TrueSight Orchestration, whereas Pega BPM is most compared with ServiceNow, Camunda, Appian, Microsoft Power Apps and IBM BPM.
See our list of best Process Automation vendors.
We monitor all Process Automation 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.