We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure App Service and Pega BPM 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."The product is scalable."
"I've used Microsoft Azure App Service quite a lot, and what I like best about it is that it's a serverless HAM, which is a feature that can run a function, a single function, but faster and more frequently without needing any other assistance. This has been what I found most valuable in Microsoft Azure App Service, the serverless option that's very easy to utilize, and you only need a minimal setup to use this and to enjoy the functionalities required, so the solution gives me a lot of comfort whenever I'm using it."
"The solution is very simple to set up."
"The primary and standout feature is ease of deployment."
"The solution overall is very good."
"Debugging using Application Insights is a valuable feature."
"Some of the features I found valuable are auto-scaling, SSL integration, cost-effectiveness, and the certificates provided by Microsoft Azure App Service."
"It is the best because it's easy to use, and there's a plan for every type of workload."
"The technical support of Pega BPM is very good."
"The most valuable features are case management and integration services."
"The solution has very helpful technical support."
"Fast prototyping."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is the various workflows."
"Can do a lot of things with minimum time and cost."
"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."
"Decreased time for plane departures and landing, supported analytical insight for planning of three to six month forecasting, and helped with operational decision planning and support."
"Microsoft Azure App Service has a lot of complexity because there are a lot of options and functionality. It is simple to become confused, there are many technical elements to learn before you can utilize the solution. If they could make the solution easier to use it would be a benefit."
"The configuration is slow without understanding the systematic process."
"The solution needs better integration capabilities on the network side."
"The solution is quite expensive. If you need more features, you need to pay for them."
"I would like to see some significant improvement in the technical support provision for this solution."
"Sometimes we face problems, but those are technical problems in Microsoft, bugs or something doesn't work as expected, but that's normal."
"In terms of room for improvement, ease of deployment would be an area that needs some focus. Azure does provide out-of-the-box deployment features, but I found that deploying to an App Service instance can be better in terms of more tools that could be available to perform a deployment."
"I would like to see some improvement in the UI/UX design, to make navigation of this solution more user friendly. For example, it could contain more explicit information on each of the features."
"The local development approach is good in Pega, however, cost-wise, it's getting expensive. That needs to be addressed."
"One of the areas of this solution that could be improved would be to advance the low code features of the application itself. We would also like to use the same platform to build any application, even if it is not necessarily defined as a functionality needed by a BPM."
"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."
"I believe that Pega's strategy when it comes to the UX part is not that great currently as compared to the other emerging BPM tools in the market."
"We need more light retail BPM tools within the Pega system. However, Pega is mostly for big companies."
"What should be included is some UI features and maybe some integrations. This includes documentation on how the UI works."
"It should have integration with non-relational databases. A lot of databases are non-relational, and as a company, we are planning to move to NoSQL or open-source databases. It would be good if we are able to install and use Pega on a NoSQL database. They can also try to tailor or organize the company a bit differently and go more towards the microservice concept. I would like Pega to develop machine learning and intelligent AI algorithms. They have a good foundation in terms of the model and the stuff that we are using for some customers, and it will be good to onboard as many machine learning algorithms as possible."
"Compared to other BPM products, the interface is somewhat complex, so the usability could be improved."
Microsoft Azure App Service is ranked 8th in Rapid Application Development Software with 38 reviews while Pega BPM is ranked 7th in Rapid Application Development Software with 55 reviews. Microsoft Azure App Service is rated 8.4, while Pega BPM is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure App Service writes "A solution with great server management and helps improve performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pega BPM writes "Low code with great APIs and good flexibility". Microsoft Azure App Service is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, Oracle Application Express (APEX), ServiceNow, Appian and ServiceNow Now Platform, whereas Pega BPM is most compared with ServiceNow, Camunda, Appian, Microsoft Power Apps and ARIS BPA. See our Microsoft Azure App Service vs. Pega BPM report.
See our list of best Rapid Application Development Software 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.
