We performed a comparison between Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center 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."One notable software-related benefit from a user perspective is our improved ability to identify opportunities for automation and process enhancement just by gaining a clearer view of the processes. There are two valuable aspects. First, setting up the process architecture is commendable. Second, not having to maintain different versions of processes is a notable benefit. The solution is stable. The support team is responsive."
"The most valuable feature is the integrated manner in which all the capabilities of the Enterprise Process Center platform work together and make it easier to complete the documentation of processes."
More Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center Pros →
"It is a very scalable solution."
"All in all, Signavio usability is excellent. Anyone can learn to use the tool quickly. This increases acceptance as employees are not facing a high learning curve. With the offered usability it is easy to model processes also live in workshops."
"A complete business project management suite which seems to open endless possibility."
"It's easy and fast. It's very quick to work with process teams in terms of improving processes. You just have to send them a URL and to have a process in front of them. I don't use all of the possibilities we have in Signavio. This has made it easier for people to adopt, because when we scrambled the process team together and started a process of improvement, it improved their process. They are much more involved than they had been earlier, and they can also use Signavio to make smaller improvements in the process for themselves. There are many more interactions between the process teams and Signavio than in our previous solution, where you had to hire in a professional process modeler. It's been a great improvement."
"When comparing my experience with Celonis and Signavio, I can discern the distinctions between these two platforms. However, I'm unable to differentiate between ARAs and add-ons, as that falls outside my scope of familiarity. Regarding Celonis, it comes with its set of advantages and disadvantages. Notably, it boasts robust features like action flows, task mining, and seamless integration with AML programming. Conversely, Signavio lacks action flows and instead relies on action segments and tasks for interaction. This discrepancy is a significant factor setting Selenium and SecureView apart. In the context of Signavio, it offers a combination of BPMN and process discovery, a feature absent in Celonis. This tandem of BPMN and process insight contributes to Signavio’S potency. Meanwhile, Celonis primarily features the process miner tool, setting it apart from Signavio. These variations collectively outline the numerous differences existing between Celonis and Signavio."
"This product has helped us to work within standards for process planning."
"The formatting features are quite good because you can create very complex models, but you can easily clean them up so that they look very nice."
"The product's most valuable feature is the transformation process."
"As with all such platforms, Enterprise Process Center is a complex tool and there are many capabilities and features that take time to learn."
"However, on the process mining side, there's potential for improvement to gain deeper insights into process functionality. Additionally, there's always room for enhancement in the user interface."
More Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center Cons →
"The user administration, the user-group administration, and the license models need improvement."
"There is room for improvement in analytics. People don't realize it, but the world has changed in the last six to eight months. Customers want to see AI like ChatGPT and ML capabilities in all aspects of business processes and reporting."
"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."
"It would be beneficial to have a defined leveling or hierarchy system to facilitate better understanding and analysis. More openness and flexibility would enhance its capabilities."
"Two executives cannot work on one modeling process simultaneously."
"SAP Signavio Process Manager needs better automatic rendering of data."
"There are a few bugs when you use the Microsoft Surface Hub with the big screen."
"Signavio Process Manager needs to have an integrated document management system to better work with processes that rely heavily on documents and document flows."
More Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center is ranked 20th in Business Process Design with 2 reviews while SAP Signavio Process Manager is ranked 6th in Business Process Design with 57 reviews. Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center is rated 9.0, while SAP Signavio Process Manager is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center writes "Highly integrated, user-friendly, and supports mobile devices". 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". Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center is most compared with , whereas SAP Signavio Process Manager is most compared with Celonis, ARIS BPA, Camunda, Visio and ADONIS. See our Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center 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.
