We performed a comparison between IBM BPM and Pega BPM based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Pega BPM finishes slightly ahead of IBM BPM. Pega BPM is low-code and very user-friendly. It provides next-generation processes that will convert problem statements into different diagrams and then implement the process, saving time and keeping organizations running efficiently. IBM BPM has a big learning curve and lacks many basic features that other BPM solutions provide.
"Process Modelling, simulation and optimization, integration, UI components."
"This solution is very stable."
"IBM BPM is both scalable and stable."
"We have used a lot of out-of-the-box reporting on the process performance metrics. We have been able to make suggested changes to staff for this role or streamlining by eliminate some activities where people were not requiring a lot of work in the first place."
"IBM BPM and Automation Anywhere working together automate manual tasks with a reduction in FTEs, creating about a 30% reduction in FTEs by automating processes."
"It is a stale solution."
"The reach with Integration Adapters and support for adding custom Java code are valuable features."
"The solution is stable."
"Case Management, as well as Workflow Automation, are Pega's most powerful capabilities."
"Pega BPM's most valuable features are case management, integration, the convenience of using REST APIs, and the ease of changing things at the UI level."
"The robotic process automation has increased the confidence of business users."
"The ability to define processes, build reports, and get insights or analytics on data is most valuable. It is a powerful platform."
"The most valuable features are case management and integration services."
"The workflow designing and integration are the most valuable features. Also, the UI design was pretty easy."
"Fast prototyping."
"There are a lot of frameworks in the product. I use Pega PRPC the most."
"Stability wavers. We have some opportunities for improvement in this space, especially as we approach our target volume of a million transactions a day. It is tough, because it is not necessarily the product. It is more around the platform and infrastructure to support it, so the connectivity to the database, web sessions, and reverse proxies in front of that."
"IBM BPM is stable, but sometimes there are issues with the server."
"The initial setup was complex."
"The initial setup process is complex for basic users."
"If the processing gets better, it would be more efficient."
"Performance on large scale requirements could also be improved."
"We have had to use Mule as an alternative integration tool because it is more flexible than IBM BPM."
"I'm hearing things might be improving, to really deliver on BPM as opposed to simply workflow. That really should be emphasized a lot more than it has been, because a lot of customers will simply implement the process and leave it there, because the product maybe doesn't emphasize BPM as much as it should, as much as maybe they talk about it in the sales process. The whole idea of BPM, is to iteratively improve the process, and in order to do that you have to have the analytics tool with it. A lot of times that doesn't go as far as it should simply because there's a lot more work to be done for that to happen, and just some sort of technical limitations that don't make that as easy as it should be."
"The biggest thing I have seen is when going from one version to another and upgrading to the latest version, it takes a pretty long time for an organization to go through an upgrade process. I think that's an area where they can make it a little smoother."
"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."
"Pega should work on redefining their model and creating a demand for their skills."
"Compared to other BPM products, the interface is somewhat complex, so the usability could be improved."
"We have experienced a few technical challenges, particularly triggering the workflow through file drops and accessing files."
"They are currently spending some time on improving the product with respect to machine learning, especially related to robotic automation. They probably could be a little more adept on that area would help."
"An area for improvement in Pega BPM is security. It's secure, but it still has a lot of vulnerabilities. Pega BPM is robust, but it still needs some improvement performance-wise."
"From a technical point of view, it would be helpful to have some advanced analytics to help with configuration. We have a lot of unwanted features and it would be good to configure it more appropriately so that we are using just exactly what we need."
IBM BPM is ranked 5th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 105 reviews while Pega BPM is ranked 3rd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews. IBM BPM is rated 7.8, while Pega BPM is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM BPM writes "Offers good case management and its integration with process design but there's a learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pega BPM writes "Provides built-in frameworks that can be reused and reduces time and cost". IBM BPM is most compared with Camunda, Appian, IBM Business Automation Workflow, Apache Airflow and AWS Step Functions, whereas Pega BPM is most compared with ServiceNow, Camunda, Appian, Microsoft Power Apps and OutSystems. See our IBM BPM vs. Pega BPM report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors and best Process Automation vendors.
We monitor all Business Process Management (BPM) 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.
