We performed a comparison between Appian and OpenText Operations Orchestration based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Process Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The application life cycle is very clear. I started learning it and giving some workshops to my team. Creating the users and the building is very structured. Documentation is nice and it's easy to learn."
"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."
"SAIL (Self-Assembling Interface Layer), a scripting language provided by Appian. It is the equivalent of JS and CSS. It allows creation of complex UIs which are also responsive. With SAIL, we have a single language for both the UI logic and its appearance. UI components can be built as reusable components and used in multiple UI interfaces."
"Call Web Service Smart Service - Web service integrations with other systems are super simple and fast to create, supported by low code menus."
"Technical support is helpful."
"The most valuable features are the low coding and low code data."
"What stands out are the speed of the product, the quick, easy development, and visual diagramming."
"We appreciate the drag and drop functionality and the easy to access plug and play features."
"It's very stable. If you ask me for the success rate metrics, it's more than 90% for both."
"The product is good functionality-wise. I am impressed with the tool's flexibility in customization."
"It has reduced the time taken to go to market. In the past, we were struggling with building these integrations, but now the process has sped up and there is an added advantage of quick delivery. In addition, it is an agent-less solution, which provides more flexibility in terms of multiple options."
"There are four areas I believe Appian could improve in. The first is a seamless contact center integration. Appian does not have a contact center feature. The second is advanced features in RPA. The third would be chatbot and email bot integration—while Appian comes with chatbot and email bot, it's not as mature as it should be, compared to the competition. The fourth area would be next best action, since there is not much of this sort of feature in Appian. These are all features which competitors' products have, and in a mature manner, whereas Appian lacks on these four areas. I see customers who are moving from Appian to Pega because these features are not in Appian."
"The performance is pretty good, but the distortions need to be optimized in order for it to work well."
"The product’s pricing could be improved from the developers' perspective."
"It is also not easy to learn. Training tutorials could be improved."
"Form creation and SAIL proprietary language still basically require programming. The claim a BA type can do everything is hogwash."
"Appian could include other applications that we could reuse for other customers, CRM for example."
"Native mobile capabilities or hybrid mobile app capabilities are very limited. Things like offline sync, offline storage, access to smartphone device features, etc. are not supported by the Appian platform yet."
"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."
"There were a lot of scalability issues that we initially faced. Whenever I tried to deploy 100-200 endpoints, it became a huge challenge. We had to actually start using other tools like Tivoli Endpoint Management in order to patch the issues."
"The tool's UI needs to be improved. It needs to have better administration features in future releases."
"The price is an area that should be addressed because the price is high."
More OpenText Operations Orchestration Pricing and Cost Advice →
Appian is ranked 3rd in Process Automation with 58 reviews while OpenText Operations Orchestration is ranked 19th in Process Automation with 24 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while OpenText Operations Orchestration is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Operations Orchestration writes "HP OO blows away the competition, but has its fair share of flaws". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Pega BPM, whereas OpenText Operations Orchestration is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, Control-M, Camunda, Microsoft System Center Orchestrator and ServiceNow Orchestration. See our Appian vs. OpenText Operations Orchestration report.
See our list of best Process Automation vendors.
We monitor all Process Automation 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.