We performed a comparison between IBM BPM and OpenText ProVision 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."It helps maintain, and in many instances, lower costs, as well as to maintain those costs, keeping them stable."
"We like that it does not require a lot of hours to train our people."
"The Process Designer is good. We like how we can drag and drop and link the processes up, that works out great for us."
"Its dashboard is easy to use and very good. It allows us to customize."
"This solution has always been lacking in the user interface (UI), it needed to be improved a lot. However, from the acquisition of Spark UI, the UI is much better. Overall the solution is robust and has the ability to integrate with any product for complex workflows."
"IBM BPM is equipped with all the functionalities which are needed for building BPM enterprise-level applications."
"Initially, the process architecture studio was very helpful and it was compliant with BPMN standards."
"The solution is stable."
"OpenText ProVision's best feature is the capability to attach a variety of attributes and extract and analyze that information."
"The stability of the product is very good."
"All the features come as part of a standard license."
"The solution can improve integration with SAP, CRM, and Salesforce, which is not capital-intensive."
"They could provide case studies to investigate and understand the functionality of business processes before development."
"It is not user-friendly."
"Also, we would like to see integration with artificial intelligence, machine learning-type of technical capabilities. Right now, there are a lot Watson libraries out there. Building those integrations more, out-of-the-box, from IBM would be a good direction."
"We still have a couple of issues that we are working on right now with stability. Mostly on the configuration side of the tool, and it has been about a month that we have been working to stabilize the platform."
"The pricing is a little bit high. It's gone up in cost."
"IBM BPM lacks openness, that is, the ability to become open for new options in terms of APIs, front-end development, and ecosystem. IBM BPM has been quite closed. One of the main improvements would be to somehow embed the rules engine into IBM BPM. Merging IBM BRMS and the rules engine with IBM BPM would be helpful. If there was some simpler way to define rules without having to put IBM BRMS on top of it, it would be good. It's something that we can get out of Camunda but not out of IBM BPM."
"Consider an admin console during deployment. I would like to migrate single instances, not the whole bunch at once."
"Lacks the ability to have your own in-house developments."
"OpenText ProVision's collaboration management is quite complicated and difficult to use."
"Integrating with or interfacing with other tools like data management tools would be very helpful."
IBM BPM is ranked 5th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 105 reviews while OpenText ProVision is ranked 35th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 3 reviews. IBM BPM is rated 7.8, while OpenText ProVision is rated 6.4. The top reviewer of IBM BPM writes "Offers good case management and its integration with process design but there's a learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText ProVision writes "Good attribute attachment but problems with collaboration". IBM BPM is most compared with Camunda, Appian, Pega BPM, IBM Business Automation Workflow and Apache Airflow, whereas OpenText ProVision is most compared with Visio, ARIS BPA, SAP Signavio Process Manager and Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect. See our IBM BPM vs. OpenText ProVision 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.
