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

SS&C Blue Prism vs Temporal comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 20, 2025

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

SS&C Blue Prism
Ranking in Process Automation
26th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (21st), Business Process Management (BPM) (34th), Medical Insurance Claims Software (3rd), Insurance Claims Processing (5th), Document Management Software (15th), Low-Code Development Platforms (25th), Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) (16th), Loan Management Software (2nd), Document Automation Software (11th)
Temporal
Ranking in Process Automation
7th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Featured Reviews

Gavin Beckett - PeerSpot reviewer
Design studio enables effective automation while licensing needs improvement
I noticed that it lacks the ability to automatically record the process steps like some of its competitors. Having this capability could accelerate the process. The delivery methodology felt somewhat waterfall in style and not sufficiently agile. Additionally, the licensing model was somewhat prohibitive. It was not developed in a consumption-based manner, however, rather in a fixed-price licensing model that did not account for volumes.
AbhishekDash - PeerSpot reviewer
Orchestrates infrastructure tasks like deployment, deletion, and management
Temporal focus on developers rather than business users. In contrast to older workflow orchestration engines like Camunda, which are more business-oriented and strongly emphasize UI and workflow authoring, Temporal is geared toward developers. It provides extensive capabilities for building complex workflows. A standout feature of Temporal is its handling of long-running workflows, a significant advantage over many other solutions. Temporal excels in managing distributed transactions and application state durability, especially in microservice environments where transactions might fail due to network issues. Temporal simplifies these challenges by managing retries, fail-safes, and circuit breakers. As a result, developers don't need to implement these features manually; Temporal handles them implicitly, though it also allows for tuning based on specific needs.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The key feature of SS&C that I find valuable is the general workflow visibility."
"I find the design studio, where I can build the automation, and the control room feature, which allows me to run and monitor the automation, to be the most useful."
"Some important features include the language capabilities, which are crucial since RPA has to read the documents provided by the customer."
"Temporal allows retryability for different workflows whenever they fail. It helps ensure idempotence and that things get done."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its ability to fix things quickly."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to manage and automate workflows without manual intervention efficiently."
"It is very useful for long-running workflows."
"We like the fact that the whole process is durable, which is very useful to us."
"It's easy to get started and user-friendly."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its ability to retry from an interrupted state."
"The solution's most valuable features include its ability to simplify the management of complex workflows, improve system resilience and fault tolerance, and reduce the need for extensive boilerplate code."
 

Cons

"I noticed that it lacks the ability to automatically record the process steps like some of its competitors."
"There is a need for improved integration with external systems in SS&C."
"Blue Prism is more costly than UiPath in terms of robotic licenses and orchestrators."
"Developers often mention the desire for a more intuitive visualization of workflow states."
"Temporal could be improved by making it more user-friendly for beginners and non-technical staff, ensuring easier integration and usability across different use cases."
"There are areas where Temporal could improve. For instance, calling multiple microservices with Temporal introduces latency due to workflow registration and analytics overhead."
"While the tool can be a bit daunting initially, especially if you're not used to async programming models, it's generally a pleasure. There's always room for improvement, though. I've noticed some limitations with the .NET SDK regarding dynamic workflows, but this might have been improved in recent versions. Overall, I think Temporal could be more open about implementing features in a more—.NET-friendly way, especially in how you add workers and clients."
"We previously faced issues with the solution's patch system."
"Temporal's debugging is a bit complex."
"Temporal images aren’t FIPS compliant, and we have to be FIPS compliant."
"Retro compatibility needs improvement. Sometimes, when we make new changes to a workflow, it fails if it is not configured properly due to compatibility issues."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The savings weren't as big as we initially expected, but they were pretty great from a developer's perspective."
"The tool is open source under the MIT license, so there are no hidden fees. You can freely use everything on their GitHub and Docker images."
"It is worth the price."
"Temporal is a free, open-source tool."
"Temporal is open-source and free to use, which is great. We didn't have to pay for any premium features."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Process Automation solutions are best for your needs.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
24%
Computer Software Company
17%
Insurance Company
11%
Government
5%
Financial Services Firm
27%
Computer Software Company
18%
Retailer
8%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SS&C Blue Prism?
The pricing was not particularly competitive. It wasn't flexible for different geographies. For instance, in Africa, they didn't have a different pricing model to account for affordability. The pri...
What needs improvement with SS&C Blue Prism?
There is a need for improved integration with external systems in SS&C. Currently, integration is limited to web services and K scripts for connecting to third-party systems, which I believe ca...
What is your primary use case for SS&C Blue Prism?
My primary use case for SS&C is managing migration projects. We are currently working on migrating from ViewStation's 3.5 version using K scripts to the new version in SS&C and rebuilding t...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Temporal?
Temporal OSS is expensive in infrastructure, but it brings back the reliability that companies need.
What needs improvement with Temporal?
The actual user interface is still in its early stages. It’s very basic. Users don’t really have a complex permission model yet. Users don’t really have ways to automate things like, for example, p...
What is your primary use case for Temporal?
We [my company] use it to run a large workload. We have a set of security scans we want to perform, and we distribute them over a full day, that’s over 24 hours. We use it to orchestrate all the st...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

SS&C AWD
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

AWS, EY, Deloitte, ABBYY, Microsoft, GLYNT.AI, Pfizer, Invesco, Western Union
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about SS&C Blue Prism vs. Temporal and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.