No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

OpenText ProVision vs SAP Signavio Process Manager comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 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

OpenText ProVision
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
45th
Average Rating
6.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Architecture Management (25th)
SAP Signavio Process Manager
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
10th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
63
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Business Process Management (BPM) category, the mindshare of OpenText ProVision is 0.9%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SAP Signavio Process Manager is 2.6%, down from 7.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Management (BPM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
SAP Signavio Process Manager2.6%
OpenText ProVision0.9%
Other96.5%
Business Process Management (BPM)
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1944672 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Director, Head of Process & Functional Architecture, Intelligent Automation at a real estate/law firm with 10,001+ employees
Good attribute attachment but problems with collaboration
I primarily use OpenText ProVision to create our end-to-end process repository and library for different parts of the organization, capturing the collaboration process to get the right inputs OpenText ProVision's best feature is the capability to attach a variety of attributes and extract and…
Sravani Bodanapu - PeerSpot reviewer
Intelligent Ops Journey Expert at ANZ Banking Group
Process modeling has standardized complex banking workflows and drives data‑driven automation decisions
I would assess the impact of process modeling features on operational transparency as a four. I give it a four because of how well the platform could be utilized if one has a license or would be able to access it via collaborative features, and as well be able to communicate, making it less people dependent and more process dependent. A small gap of one is only because if the map has to be shared or if somebody has to work together on a map, similar to how we have Google Forms where more than two people can make changes simultaneously, the map does not allow that. One has to close it, and the next partner can only access the map after I close it. The existing changes are lost if they click on ignore or if they close the diagram. This is one feature which is sometimes bothersome. The gap of one is something that is personal feedback from my end. If someone is a newbie and they are building a map for the first time, they definitely go through a training module. But if somebody is jumping right in to build a map for the first time, which I did more than a couple of years ago, I felt that given the extent to which we have artificial intelligence capabilities right now, it would be nice if whenever you are saving a diagram and if I build it incorrectly in terms of adhering to BPMN 2.0, errors are shown, which is really nice. There are errors and warnings that need to be corrected to adhere to the standards. It is great that it allows me to save, but in order to correct the errors, if I do not understand what the error is trying to tell me. For example, sometimes it says that the element is named wrong. I understand that; it is a verb and noun that is a requirement. But sometimes it says the edge folding is not clear, and despite trying several times, I still do not get it. SAP could consider having AI capabilities to suggest how it can be done immediately on the screen itself, perhaps in the form of a virtual assistant or something. Today, for larger errors, I go to Google to check it and try to understand. If an assistant tells me that I think the arrow may be placed wrong, I think that would help me. It would save time and help me from looking up multiple dictionaries to understand what it is trying to say. At the moment, we are not integrating SAP Signavio Process Manager with existing ERP systems because internally I think we are using multiple enterprise resource planning tools. Because of that, there is a restraint to connect it with SAP Signavio Process Manager, and there is a lot of concern in terms of how data could be used because we work in a banking environment. We are not leveraging, and we have SAP S/4HANA. It would be great if there is a data lake that connects to the process, but at the moment, we do not do that. Every time we build a process, it is picked up by a different team, and they try to connect it with the data lake. It is a great feature which I think can be leveraged, but with the range of legacy systems that the company is using today, there is not much I can comment about how the ERP can be leveraged internally.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I like that all the features come as part of a standard license and that one license covers everything."
"The stability of the product is very good."
"OpenText ProVision's best feature is the capability to attach a variety of attributes and extract and analyze that information."
"Signavio is quite a useful application and easy to use for companies who already have a certain level of maturity or who have decided to implement process management."
"This product has helped us to work within standards for process planning."
"The GUI is very easy to use, where you can sit together with your colleagues, discuss the process, and during these discussions you can build up the model."
"A complete business project management suite which seems to open endless possibility."
"SAP Signavio Process Manager is very responsive."
"The collaboration function in the project views is valuable because people can comment on the processes and we can respond."
"I use SAP Signavio Process Manager to model processes to the former operating model."
"This is a very accessible and very quick-to-learn tool."
 

Cons

"Lacks the ability to have your own in-house developments."
"My main complaint is that the solution is not open source in the sense that you can't have your own in-house developments."
"Integrating with or interfacing with other tools like data management tools would be very helpful."
"There are a number of drawbacks. Mainly, the collaboration is lacking to some extent - at least when it comes to how we are using it."
"OpenText ProVision's collaboration management is quite complicated and difficult to use."
"There are some small graphical bugs, but they are addressed immediately by Signavio to their product development team."
"The licensing model could be better."
"The user management functionality in Process Manager is not as user friendly as the one in the Collaboration Hub."
"From what I have experienced when I worked with a process team, we would like to work with dummy process diagrams."
"SAP Signavio Process Manager's UI is not user-friendly. Its pricing is also high."
"The performance metrics appearing in the collaboration hub needs to be improved."
"I think Signavio BPM does its job, it is easy to use, but it runs a little slow sometimes and it could be faster."
"I would like to see more integration with the process manager in terms of the workflow accelerator."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Comparatively, it is a bit costly when you look at similar tools with similar features."
"SAP Signavio charges a lot of money."
"SaaS has no setup cost, just licensing fees."
"The customer Journey Modeler is more than twice the price of Process Manager, which is a lot."
"I rate the product price a five on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price."
"My client purchased one editor license and the collaboration hub, which covers up to a hundred people."
"The solution is expensive."
"I think we're spending about $150,000 a year on licensing costs."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Management (BPM) solutions are best for your needs.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
15%
Construction Company
13%
Energy/Utilities Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Healthcare Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise45
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
Which is better - Signavio Process Manager or Celonis?
SAP Signavio Process Manager is a very robust industrial-grade business process modeling tool. It is easy to use and does not require too much technological involvement. This solution has a collabo...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Signavio Process Manager?
I am not aware of the pricing and licensing of SAP Signavio Process Manager in the current firm I am working for. However, in my last company, Fidelity International, I was introduced to SAP Signav...
What advice do you have for others considering Signavio Process Manager?
I do use the collaborative workspace feature of SAP Signavio Process Manager. Our stakeholders who are outside of SAP Signavio Process Manager environment do use the collaborative feature because t...
 

Also Known As

Metastorm ProVision
Signavio Process Editor
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Delta Technology, Export Development Canada, Rompetrol, Salt River Project, AMEC, U.S. Air Force, HP Consulting & Integration
DHL, Coca Cola EP, Prudential, Zalando, T-Systems, Jabil, Endress+Hauser, Rakuten
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText ProVision vs. SAP Signavio Process Manager and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.