We performed a comparison between IBM Blueworks Live and SAP Signavio Process Manager based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Design solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Valuable features include real-time modeling and design work, the ability to perform workshops with clients in real-time with the tool, and getting instant output."
"It enables decisions based upon processes that we do model, and ultimately move forward with."
"It's very easy, very quick to create a process map. It has templates. The look and feel is very nice. What we want to achieve out of the process map, we can achieve it using Blueworks."
"The reporting that we can generate from IBM Blueworks Live has been interesting. We found the KPIs, risks, process modeling, format, and colors, to be very good. We use the EY template and it is interesting to generate reporting in this format."
"Business users understand it really well, which means we can then help them automate their business processes."
"The licenses are transferrable between different users."
"I like the two-tiered approach, that is, discover and then drill down to the main steps. You can right click and attach risk, policies, and much more. It is a user-friendly solution."
"It has a built-in capability to capture process owners and managers against processes along with other process governance roles."
"The benefit of this application is that I can immediately describe processes and form normative documents for these processes. For me, this is definitely a plus. Сurrently, I work in a company that is not involved in the structural alignment of business processes. They have huge gaps in this. Nothing is described and there are no norms. Therefore, the formation of regulatory documents, rules, and descriptions of processes, not only in graphic form, but also in documentary form is an absolute plus. I have not found this in other process programs."
"It is a stable solution."
"The collaboration function in the project views is valuable because people can comment on the processes and we can respond."
"The interface is very intuitive and includes a drag-and-drop function."
"This solution is innovative and simple to use."
"The Signavio tool is very easy to use and it is one of the reasons why I like it."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The GUI is very easy to use, where you can sit together with your colleagues, discuss the process, and during these discussions you can build up the model."
"The ability to create a very structured rule. With the capability that we have right now, Blueworks Live is more process focused. We should be able to enhance it to include a lot more of decisions as well."
"IBM Blueworks is BPMN 2.0 compliant, but it does not adapt to the overarching BPMN 2.0 concepts."
"Spaces are not well organized; space controls are lacking."
"I can't insert any images. For example, within the process map, if I want to put it in the box or rectangle, or circle. If I have to use one image or icon, that's not possible."
"The solution is a very basic discovery product so it doesn't have that much modeling capability. This can be improved."
"In the solution Signavio, they have a customer journey mapping feature that should be added to IBM Blueworks Live. It's valuable to map or document the customer journey to identify the pains and opportunities in this process."
"We would like the ability to add additional custom colors. We would like to color additional items to add notes to the blueprint."
"I would like to see integration with ERP systems. This would help us to simulate the process and see where the problems are. Though IBM Blueworks Live is a good tool for documenting, it is not good for simulating."
"The user administration, the user-group administration, and the license models need improvement."
"The reporting is too slow and there is a limit of 250 processes."
"It could be more flexible from a customization point of view, where the user is able to display only whatever he needs."
"We sometimes experience downtime or a dropped connection, so I think that the stability can be improved for the SaaS solution."
"Moreover, the functionality to show different process variations with "views" could be improved to allow more customization of these views. I believe this would increase the user experience and administrative efforts maintaining these process variations."
"The collaboration and commenting are great. However, I think it would be more useful for people to get notifications of comments straight-away so we can react even quicker to them than we already can."
"If you're going to use the tool the way I'm using it, which is to work with businesses and capture what they're thinking, it would be helpful to be able to insert other objects onto a diagram."
"Customized reporting can be improved to make this a more versatile tool."
IBM Blueworks Live is ranked 12th in Business Process Design with 20 reviews while SAP Signavio Process Manager is ranked 6th in Business Process Design with 57 reviews. IBM Blueworks Live is rated 8.2, while SAP Signavio Process Manager is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM Blueworks Live writes "An easily scalable and affordable solution that enables users to document and digitize processes with ease". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SAP Signavio Process Manager writes "Has many functionalities and is used to model processes to the former operating model". IBM Blueworks Live is most compared with Visio, Lucidchart, ARIS Cloud, Camunda and Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, whereas SAP Signavio Process Manager is most compared with Celonis, ARIS BPA, Camunda, Visio and Lucidchart. See our IBM Blueworks Live vs. SAP Signavio Process Manager report.
See our list of best Business Process Design vendors.
We monitor all Business Process Design 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.
