We performed a comparison between IBM BPM and SAP NetWeaver Enterprise Portal based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Infrastructure solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is efficient in reducing costs."
"The Process Designer is good. We like how we can drag and drop and link the processes up, that works out great for us."
"Responsive Portal + Process Federation Server. This set of solutions offers a unified worklist to our customers."
"We can scale by increasing the infrastructure which is currently running."
"The possibility to add Java code as embedded .jar, that increases the flexibility of the solution."
"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."
"Some of the features that I like the most are team management and process performance. They are both very useful and very powerful with regard to the workflow."
"With the Process Center, I can go to one place and view what all the environments are doing."
"They integrated it with the SAP router."
"Workflow functionality and internal portal capabilities are the most important features."
"Internal workflow approval around ESS and MSS leave days, capex approval as well as internal communication to the business have improved the way my organization functions."
"From the use of this solution, we have been able to establish better processes and have greater management of our company."
"It needs more customization. We like to customize the screens to show more things related to our company."
"Except for the Lucene the index - we had a couple of issues in the Process Portal where the Lucene index went out of sync, and we had to work at least 15 - 20 hours to have it back in sync with the database."
"I would like to see the solution be able to interact with other customer software solutions."
"The setup was quite complex because the solution was cutting-edge at that time and IBM invested considerably in the implementation, likely at a loss to themselves."
"Our developers are complaining that it's too complex to maintain."
"It might not be suitable for entry level clients because it comes with a huge number of modules for processing that at times might not be necessary for upcoming clients."
"The analysis reports could be much better."
"The product is extremely complex to use and administrate."
"Due to our business, some setups were very complex."
"External portal functionality with suppliers and customers needs improvement."
"We encountered stability issues, especially on external functionality around its RFP capabilities."
"The user interface could be improved by making it more user-friendly."
"Our customers expect that a page will open within one second, and I doubt this will happen. Also, opening documentation takes time. Fixing this will help the customer and help to meet their expectations."
More SAP NetWeaver Enterprise Portal Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
IBM BPM is ranked 7th in Application Infrastructure with 105 reviews while SAP NetWeaver Enterprise Portal is ranked 21st in Application Infrastructure. IBM BPM is rated 7.8, while SAP NetWeaver Enterprise Portal is rated 8.0. 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 SAP NetWeaver Enterprise Portal writes "The UI makes the setup easy to do from anywhere". IBM BPM is most compared with Camunda, Pega BPM, Appian, IBM Business Automation Workflow and Apache Airflow, whereas SAP NetWeaver Enterprise Portal is most compared with Microsoft .NET Framework, NGINX Plus, Apache Web Server, IBM WebSphere Application Server and IBM DataPower Gateway. See our IBM BPM vs. SAP NetWeaver Enterprise Portal report.
See our list of best Application Infrastructure vendors.
We monitor all Application Infrastructure 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.