We performed a comparison between Boomi AtomSphere Flow and Microsoft Power Apps based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Low-Code Development Platforms solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."In the long run, if you have a good team, solution architect, and an architect from Boomi's side, then it is a good tool from an ROI perspective since it can help save money."
"Boomi AtomSphere Flow is integrated through APIs, it exposes the API and any product can call the APIs in the queue. Additionally, it is secure."
"Boomi AtomSphere Flow is very easy to develop and maintain compared to other tools like SAP HANA Cloud Integration or Cloud Platform."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its core integration with Boomi AtomSphere because it's extremely easy to tap into any informational system of a company."
"The most valuable feature is the time-to-market because you can make apps pretty fast."
"There are a lot of different applications; you can connect PowerApps, or Flow, or Power BI to many different types of applications to interchange data."
"If you want something that you can use for cellphones, multiple tablets, and things like that, you can use PowerApps for the front end. It gathers all the information, and the information goes somewhere else."
"We get feedback on a real-time basis, which is actually very useful for us."
"I can have a SharePoint list and connect with users through PowerApps to present the information."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the Model-driven or Canvas application-making platforms. The power of the two gives us exactly what we are looking for."
"The solution is very straightforward. Its context is obvious and everything is easy to understand."
"The UI functionality is the most valuable aspect of this solution."
"Its stability could be improved."
"The solution could improve by being more user-friendly. The whole solution is used through an interface and it could always be improved."
"The solution's user interface building needs improvement."
"The development effort with Boomi AtomSphere Flow is more when you compare it with other tools, which is a drawback and an area of improvement."
"The solution must provide more integration with third-party applications."
"We would like to see the period for viewing executions within this solution to be extended beyond its current limit of 28 days. We would prefer to be able to offer our customers an infinite amount of history to search."
"In my experience, the solution's deployment can be tricky."
"The solution should have more integration with other platforms."
"Microsoft PowerApps is not responsive in nature."
"I have always felt that you need an IT background to use this solution."
"The portal and canvas apps need to be improved and brought up to speed."
"The flexibility of the user interface could be better."
Boomi AtomSphere Flow is ranked 19th in Low-Code Development Platforms with 4 reviews while Microsoft Power Apps is ranked 1st in Low-Code Development Platforms with 77 reviews. Boomi AtomSphere Flow is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Power Apps is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Boomi AtomSphere Flow writes "A competent solution for integrating enterprise-grade software". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Power Apps writes "Low-code, low learning curve, and reduces manpower". Boomi AtomSphere Flow is most compared with Apache Airflow, Camunda, Pega BPM, Mendix and AWS Step Functions, whereas Microsoft Power Apps is most compared with Oracle Application Express (APEX), Mendix, ServiceNow, Appian and Microsoft Azure App Service. See our Boomi AtomSphere Flow vs. Microsoft Power Apps report.
See our list of best Low-Code Development Platforms vendors.
We monitor all Low-Code Development Platforms 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.