Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center vs iServer comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 3, 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

Interfacing Technologies En...
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
BI (Business Intelligence) Tools (29th), Business Process Management (BPM) (35th), GRC (21st), Quality Management Software (41st), Document Management Software (18th)
iServer
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Architecture Management (9th), Business Process Design (17th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Process, Business Automation, and Digital Transformation solutions, they serve different purposes. Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center is designed for BI (Business Intelligence) Tools and holds a mindshare of 0.0%.
iServer, on the other hand, focuses on Enterprise Architecture Management, holds 4.5% mindshare, up 4.5% since last year.
BI (Business Intelligence) Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center0.0%
Microsoft Power BI20.4%
Tableau15.4%
Other64.2%
BI (Business Intelligence) Tools
Enterprise Architecture Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
iServer4.5%
LeanIX15.3%
Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect12.7%
Other67.5%
Enterprise Architecture Management
 

Featured Reviews

SantoshKulkarni1 - PeerSpot reviewer
A Robust Solution with Enhanced Automation and Process Improvement Identification Capabilities
I recommend that users invest more time in the initial setup of the process architecture within the tool. It is crucial to spend time designing how the process architecture works as it significantly impacts how the tool behaves. This upfront investment can prevent the need for extensive reworking later on.
Antonios Lazanakis - PeerSpot reviewer
Flexible, easy to use, and easy to import data
We use iServer to establish an enterprise architecture function in our organization iServer is a very flexible platform for defining your own enterprise architecture model. It is very easy to import data, and we also have good integration with Visual Drawing Tools and SharePoint. The solution is…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"One notable software-related benefit from a user perspective is our improved ability to identify opportunities for automation and process enhancement just by gaining a clearer view of the processes. There are two valuable aspects. First, setting up the process architecture is commendable. Second, not having to maintain different versions of processes is a notable benefit. The solution is stable. The support team is responsive."
"The most valuable feature is the integrated manner in which all the capabilities of the Enterprise Process Center platform work together and make it easier to complete the documentation of processes."
"The solution has wide use within Microsoft products. The integration with Microsoft products, and, in particular, Microsoft Office, is great."
"This is a flexible tool compared to some other solutions."
"Tech support is very responsive. They solved issues within a prompt response time."
"This flexibility is the most helpful part in the standard version."
"The product has a valuable customized model."
"The initial setup is easy."
"The most valuable features of iServer are the integration with Microsoft Office and the interface is similar to Microsoft applications making them easy to use."
"The solution is easily modified to suit your needs."
 

Cons

"However, on the process mining side, there's potential for improvement to gain deeper insights into process functionality. Additionally, there's always room for enhancement in the user interface."
"As with all such platforms, Enterprise Process Center is a complex tool and there are many capabilities and features that take time to learn."
"There are other solutions out there that have a better user interface."
"The performance is slow, which is something that should be improved."
"The product is more expensive than Spark."
"There can be some performance issues using the solution that should be improved. When you make modifications modify to files there are embedded data within that can take a while to process."
"We could allocate permissions to use only specific components to the users rather than the entire instance."
"There could be features for process mining, process simulation, and analytics."
"It runs relatively slowly."
"iServer is a solid tool. Occasionally, we needed to contact the vendor to clarify details such as porting issues, missing components, and model specifics."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to understand what options you believe you are going to want to implement and rollout in the first three to five years, but spend the most time understanding what the set-up costs and pricing will be in the first two or maybe three."
"The price of iServer is reasonable compared to other solutions."
"The solution is cheaper than its competitors."
"It's about 13K to set up and 9K for the license for three months. I think it's about 20K a year, but we haven't firmed up on pricing yet because the price depends on how long we commit to the solution."
"The product has a moderate pricing."
"Aim for the exact number of people who shall define/review approve and view the processes, as it will impact the cost."
"They offer annual subscriptions for developing countries, which are not affordable for small or medium businesses."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which BI (Business Intelligence) Tools solutions are best for your needs.
866,286 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
19%
Government
13%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Construction Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise10
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center?
One notable software-related benefit from a user perspective is our improved ability to identify opportunities for automation and process enhancement just by gaining a clearer view of the processe...
What needs improvement with Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center?
While we have yet to explore the tool's capabilities fully, I can't think of any immediate drawbacks. However, on the process mining side, there's potential for improvement to gain deeper insights ...
What is your primary use case for Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center?
We use the solution for finance processes, specifically for accounts payable and accounts receivable.
What do you like most about iServer?
iServer has valuable features for workflow and document management.
What needs improvement with iServer?
iServer should invest in enhancing the capabilities of the embedded drawing tool, draw.io. draw.io is a drawing tool used to draw architectural diagrams, flow diagrams, etc. It is an alternative to...
What is your primary use case for iServer?
We use iServer to establish an enterprise architecture function in our organization.
 

Also Known As

Enterprise Process Center
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Pepsi-Cola Manufacturing International Ltd., Pfizer Deutschland GmbH, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Bayer S.p.A., KPMG, Royal Australian Air, Orange
Barclays, Cathay Pacific, Deloitte, British Gas, MasterCard
Find out what your peers are saying about Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center vs. iServer and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
866,286 professionals have used our research since 2012.