We performed a comparison between IBM Case Foundation and SAP Signavio Process Manager 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."The content management is great."
"It is easy to set up workflows that notify the user depending on certain events."
"The solution is scalable."
"It provides us the capability of producing business processes for documents that are launched immediately when a document comes into the repository."
"The most valuable feature is the content manager part of the file as it is very stable, robust, and reliable."
"Case Foundation provides a strong security boost."
"The client and the IBM content navigation are the solution's most valuable features."
"The most valuable features are those involving decision making, analysis, and anything related to event documents because those processes are related to content as well."
"All in all, Signavio usability is excellent. Anyone can learn to use the tool quickly. This increases acceptance as employees are not facing a high learning curve. With the offered usability it is easy to model processes also live in workshops."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the portal for spreading it over the organization, the usability, and the workflow generator in the background."
"The features I find most valuable are ease of use and the Collaboration Hub."
"The solution provides data mining and AI features."
"The most valuable feature for me is the collaboration point of view, where everybody has a single view, or source of truth, and everybody sees the same thing. Everyone can comment, contribute, and discuss the processes itself, which makes it easier to funnel down the most value adding comments and make the relevant changes to the processes. This leads to the next best iteration or version of your process."
"It's way of handling is really an advantage. It's quite easy to use, without too much training . That's the main point for me."
"The benefit of this application is that I can immediately describe processes and form normative documents for these processes. For me, this is definitely a plus. Сurrently, I work in a company that is not involved in the structural alignment of business processes. They have huge gaps in this. Nothing is described and there are no norms. Therefore, the formation of regulatory documents, rules, and descriptions of processes, not only in graphic form, but also in documentary form is an absolute plus. I have not found this in other process programs."
"The feature that I like the most is the collaboration hub, where every user or every employee can see the process in the overview."
"We are now using microservices but there are some areas where the coordination with FileNet is problematic."
"The solution can be quite expensive."
"IBM needs to update the user interfaces of all its products to make them more intuitive and accessible to beginners. Compared to Microsoft products, IBM solutions are less user-friendly. IBM programs are hard to master. It's a problem in my region because it's hard to find IT staff who can work with IBM."
"There is a need for more open and flexible integration capabilities, allowing seamless collaboration with a broader spectrum of business process management solutions, beyond the confines of IBM's document management offerings."
"Comparing the solution with other interfaces, IBM BPM is much better than Case Foundation. They need to make this solution's interface more user-friendly."
"Once a workflow is launched then it stays static forever, which is a problem because if there is a change in the business then you cannot change the workflow."
"The place of improvement is merging or combining all of the workflow functionality into one seamless tool. Now, there are multiple installations that are different. Case Foundation, before you can put Case Manager and you've got IBM BPM, and the roadmap is there to merge them altogether. But that's the struggle at the moment, it's having multiple installations and disparate workflow applications."
"The interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"The user administration, the user-group administration, and the license models need improvement."
"I find it difficult to figure out how I can better align this solution with my KPIs."
"The product's pricing could be improved."
"Its reporting feature could have customization options."
"Part of the product that I think can improve is document control. That's currently not even possible. To work with documents we have something of a workaround using SharePoint."
"I think the interface itself can improve a bit. I think the interface is still stuck about a decade in the past, if I may be so brutal about it. Some of the buttons are really small, so you can't even see them. I think it needs upgrading to the 21st century with apps and the way we use mobile phones."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"We sometimes experience downtime or a dropped connection, so I think that the stability can be improved for the SaaS solution."
IBM Case Foundation is ranked 27th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 12 reviews while SAP Signavio Process Manager is ranked 8th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews. IBM Case Foundation is rated 7.8, while SAP Signavio Process Manager is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM Case Foundation writes "Streamlined business process automation with user-friendly design". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SAP Signavio Process Manager writes "Has many functionalities and is used to model processes to the former operating model". IBM Case Foundation is most compared with IBM Business Automation Workflow, whereas SAP Signavio Process Manager is most compared with Celonis, ARIS BPA, Camunda, Visio and ADONIS. See our IBM Case Foundation vs. SAP Signavio Process Manager 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.
