We performed a comparison between Appian and Bizagi 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."Recently, we added Appian Process Mining, Appian Portals, and now Appian RPA."
"Appian is easy to install and set up, and it does not come out with your audit. It has accessible process orchestration and process management. With Appian, the time to market is much faster."
"The agile manner that we require to create our workflows. This is probably the most critical part of our solution and the time it takes to start processing the solution."
"What stands out are the speed of the product, the quick, easy development, and visual diagramming."
"There is a version coming out every six months with performance improvements."
"The process models provide self-documenting systems."
"It is really simple to create a new app, and I like the data-centric aspect of the BPM tool."
"We appreciate the drag and drop functionality and the easy to access plug and play features."
"The ability to write our own code inside each activity is beneficial. Sometimes we need to create functionality that doesn't come out of the box, and this allows us to do that."
"The documentation capabilities are very good. Very structured documents and process versions are valuable features, and being able to communicate that to our customers is also a very good feature. It has a good balance between the effort and the result. So, you don't need to be too detailed. You can document while you are modeling, which is a very good feature."
"What I find most valuable is the flexibility, I find it very easy to use and very flexible for my purpose. I can use it without any particular problem, and it's very intuitive and easy to understand."
"One of the features I like is that when drawing any task, when putting a task on the process model canvas, I can simply click on it and see the other task icons for that task. It's just one quick, simple, straightforward connectivity from task to task."
"The natural notation is the best feature of Bizagi because it makes it compatible with other products."
"The most valuable feature is that it is compatible with Visual Studio and .NET, and we can program it. Its speed is very good, and it is also stable and easy to deploy."
"The solution's simulation capabilities are the most valuable aspects."
"Bizagi is a very useful tool because it does not require you to program. The user logic is very easy to understand even for people who are not engineers or developers."
"Authoring tool is slow to use resulted in limitations on how quickly solutions can be built."
"I would like to see more features for enterprises. They would also benefit from adding documentation and training on their site."
"The ability of the interface to load automatic data is not great."
"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."
"Something I would like to see improved is an SQL database connection."
"Form creation and SAIL proprietary language still basically require programming. The claim a BA type can do everything is hogwash."
"I wouldn't say their response time is long, but it could be quicker."
"We would like to have more granular control for interface styling."
"One part of the university has changed its regular desktops to Linux. This is a weak point because Bizagi doesn't run on Linux. I would like the opportunity to run the software inside of Linux."
"It needs an easier setup for the Bizagi Engine."
"It needs some better notation functionality."
"I don't know if it's a problem with my operating system or a Bizagi problem, but many times I see that when I try to connect different activities, they show up as not connected."
"I would like to see more in terms of analytics and better reporting."
"Bizagi could be improved by more automation and machine learning. Now that I'm learning more about data analyzers, I'm realizing that many people have problems with data and how to understand them."
"Bizagi doesn't have integrations with other solutions, such as ERP systems. In the industry and your company, you have a lot of systems with which you need to integrate, but Bizagi doesn't have such integrations, which makes it very difficult. Its scalability can also be improved. It is good for a startup, but when you need something more complex, it is not good."
"It works slowly on the cloud, sometimes."
Appian is ranked 3rd in Process Automation with 58 reviews while Bizagi is ranked 7th in Process Automation with 78 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while Bizagi is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Bizagi writes "A flexible, customizable solution that reduced time to market, but the UI and customer support could be better". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Camunda, ServiceNow and Oracle Application Express (APEX), whereas Bizagi is most compared with Camunda, Visio, Bonita, Microsoft Power Apps and Visual Paradigm. See our Appian vs. Bizagi report.
See our list of best Process Automation vendors, best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors, and best Rapid Application Development Software 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.