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

Pillir vs WorkflowGen comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 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

Pillir
Ranking in Rapid Application Development Software
47th
Ranking in Low-Code Development Platforms
47th
Average Rating
10.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.3
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
WorkflowGen
Ranking in Rapid Application Development Software
38th
Ranking in Low-Code Development Platforms
46th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (31st), Business Process Management (BPM) (51st), Process Automation (43rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Rapid Application Development Software category, the mindshare of Pillir is 0.1%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of WorkflowGen is 0.3%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Rapid Application Development Software
 

Featured Reviews

principl247992 - PeerSpot reviewer
Intuitive and easy to use with almost no coding
The ability to analyze the business logic built over the years in ABAP and then convert it was pretty amazing. This is the first time I saw a solution that offers something like that. While obviously, it can't convert 100% of the logic (we had over 30,000 lines of code in this process alone), it did pretty well. Afterward, my team had to go in and complete the rest - using drag and drop - almost with no use of code. I love how they took the MIT Scratch concept and implemented it into the in-app backend. It makes the app creation so much more intuitive and easy to use.
CO
Good for automatically triggering workflows, but needs to be more customizable
We use this product for many different reasons related to our business We use it a lot for creating workflows to transfer materials between plants, which is a signature part of what we do. The most valuable feature is the ability to automatically trigger the workflow. This solution needs to be…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I believe that this is the only product in the market that truly supports offline capabilities in an SAP environment."
"I love how they took the MIT Scratch concept and implemented it into the in-app backend. It makes the app creation so much more intuitive and easy to use."
"We use it a lot for creating workflows to transfer materials between plants, which is a signature part of what we do."
 

Cons

"The modernizer element should convert a higher percentage of the ABAP code, moving it from approximately 75%, closer to 100%."
"While we're not in a place of letting LOB analysts build apps, at some point, we may want to give them a bit more freedom - as long as we can limit their ability to harm the ERP data. I would like to see more tools pertaining to this area."
"This solution needs to be more customizable."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is straightforward consumption based on the number of end-users."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Rapid Application Development Software solutions are best for your needs.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Also Known As

appsFreedom
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Dole packaed food, Par Pacific, Brown Forman (Jack Daniels and other brands), Mobile Mini, Nabors
Comcast, Deloitte, Mitsui & Co Ltd, Sanofi Pasteur, Textron, XL Group. WorkflowGen accelerates business process adaptability in 70 countries for 500+ organizations and 1,000,000 users.
Find out what your peers are saying about Pillir vs. WorkflowGen and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.