We performed a comparison between Appian and Bizagi based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Management (BPM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product's most valuable feature is the low code aspect of development. We can develop an end-to-end VPN solution using a single platform."
"Process culture is making noise inside the organization because now, everybody knows that their time is being monitored."
"The initial setup is easy."
"Rapid development with low-code makes it easier to quickly get apps implemented and the time to break-even and ROI is much faster."
"It has very flexible adaptation and the ability to save and automate processes."
"Write to Data Store Entity - Saving data in SQL databases is done easily using entities. Entities (CDTs in Appian terminology) define relationships and target schema tables via XSD files."
"With low-code, we don't need a lot of coding, and then from the plumbing perspective, there is a complete CI/CD pipeline that exists within Appian that can be leveraged for open deployment."
"Appian's most valuable feature is that we can create end-to-end process workflows with minimum turnaround."
"Its cost is the most valuable. It is not as expensive. It is also easy to make different types of processes for the users."
"It is easy to use and easy to learn. It is also fully compatible with BPMN virtual tool. Bizagi is very fast in responding to and fixing the issues."
"Great mapping feature that's easy to use."
"The interface, design, and accessible user manuals to help get started using the solution are valuable features in Bizagi."
"The most valuable feature is the organizational modeling capability."
"It is quite a stable solution."
"The product enables the users to automate the processes and provides a good user experience."
"The user interface is pretty good."
"If we could calculate the amount of data that will be realized, it would help us a lot."
"The performance is pretty good, but the distortions need to be optimized in order for it to work well."
"Architecture of product and scalabiility issues."
"The tool itself is pretty good, but the main area that we struggled with was the backend. The frontend development is really good, but the backend modeling can be streamlined a little bit. There are good integrations, but tying them through the data layer and then up into the frontend could be improved a little bit. It does read/write on the data source, and you can configure it to just write or just read, but there is a little bit of work involved."
"A point of improvement would be the SAIL forms. The built-in tool used to generate forms does not have debugging support (to view local variables as they change on live preview, and step-by-step valuation) which is a big drawback for form development. Moreover, the script language used to build SAIL forms does not support inheritance or lambda expressions (functions as arguments of other functions), which makes the code base more verbose."
"What could be improved is more on the front end perspective, like the user interface and the mobile application aspect."
"Even though the company has made great improvements in online documentation, featuring rich material which includes case studies of real-life use cases, the material could definitely be better in quality and coverage of use cases."
"The biggest areas of improvement would be in facilitating team development, DevOps, and integration with typical tools used in enterprise development (Jenkins, Subversion, etc.)"
"The solution's interface could be a bit more user-friendly and I would like to see more integrations with other Office products, not just Office 365."
"Enhancing data generation methods for easier printing and refining the file attachment and user interface to optimize usability."
"From a developer's point of view, an improvement in the layout would make the UI better."
"Also, the tool sometimes feels not so mature when we find random deploy errors from testing to production environment."
"One thing that I don't like very much is related to integration: we have to develop some connectors... I would need a connector that connects to a REST service and that uses client ID in secret... They provide the means to develop a connector and use it, but they should implement this because REST services are among the most used protocols for web services."
"Bizagi's UI should include shorter steps for documenting controls, documenting properties, changing some attributes in the object, and adding additional text."
"It is difficult to drive ROI on types of processes involving complex business rules."
"One part of the university has changed its regular desktops to Linux. This is a weak point because Bizagi doesn't run on Linux. I would like the opportunity to run the software inside of Linux."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 58 reviews while Bizagi is ranked 7th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 78 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while Bizagi is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Bizagi writes "A flexible, customizable solution that reduced time to market, but the UI and customer support could be better". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Oracle Application Express (APEX), whereas Bizagi is most compared with Camunda, Visio, Bonita, Microsoft Power Apps and Visual Paradigm. See our Appian vs. Bizagi report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors, best Rapid Application Development Software vendors, and best Low-Code Development Platforms 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.
