We performed a comparison between Appian and Hyland OnBase based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Management (BPM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."What stands out are the speed of the product, the quick, easy development, and visual diagramming."
"The tool is very flexible."
"SAIL (Self-Assembling Interface Layer), a scripting language provided by Appian. It is the equivalent of JS and CSS. It allows creation of complex UIs which are also responsive. With SAIL, we have a single language for both the UI logic and its appearance. UI components can be built as reusable components and used in multiple UI interfaces."
"The application life cycle is very clear. I started learning it and giving some workshops to my team. Creating the users and the building is very structured. Documentation is nice and it's easy to learn."
"Technical support is quite responsive."
"Technical support is helpful."
"The Application Designer is very user friendly. There are also lot of plug-ins that you can use and, for the most part, they are free."
"I find the BPM the most valuable feature."
"I like the cloud and its integrability."
"We found the setup process to be okay since they do offer a troubleshooting guide."
"OnBase is a remarkable tool. It is a well-done product. Hyland has a lot of experience in building it and looking for new things for clients in terms of functionalities. It has amazing stability, and it can grow horizontally and vertically. It is built for growth. Their technical support is also quite good and available throughout the year."
"The most valuable features are that it's very secure and provides audit trails for our documents."
"The solution is very developed and we are not taking full advantage of its functionalities."
"The retention module is one of the most valuable features. Whatever we scan onto the system can be identified and we are notified when the records are due to be disposed."
"I would like to see more complete university tools. For example, with UiPath, I have had a good experience related to a free course in order to provide some users some different levels of knowledge. This extra training helps users not only use the solution but to develop further within the tool."
"Native mobile capabilities or hybrid mobile app capabilities are very limited. Things like offline sync, offline storage, access to smartphone device features, etc. are not supported by the Appian platform yet."
"The solution could improve by being more responsive when dealing with large quantities of data. Additionally, they can make the decision or rules engine better. It cannot handle too many rules or too many decisions at once."
"Authoring tool is slow to use resulted in limitations on how quickly solutions can be built."
"If we could calculate the amount of data that will be realized, it would help us a lot."
"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."
"We would like to see more reduced latency. We would like to make sure that the scale-out factor will be much more as workloads come in."
"There should be more flexibility for the developers to choose the look and feel of the UI. They should have a better ability to design their widgets and customize them with different colors, shapes, and sizes. That is a limitation that could be improved upon."
"For user experience, they would have to do more with the interface. It is not easy to work with and is a little messy. It is getting better, but it is not yet good enough. Other products are comparatively doing better in terms of the user interface. I have been hearing about Box, which is very easy to use and learn for the users. OnBase has to work on this aspect. It should have BPM capabilities. We compete with tools that provide the BPM feature and support those standards. They can do better in terms of the pricing model. It is a really expensive tool in Latin America. They should have different prices for different regions."
"We are struggling with duplicates and would like to have OCR functionality when using this solution."
"We need to troubleshoot why our reports didn't get downloaded in a day. There is a workflow feature which powerful but also complicated."
"The dashboards do have some room for improvement as compared to the other vendors which are there in the market."
"An area for improvement would be the training - getting our people up to speed on how to use it required more training than we expected due to the complexity of the solution."
"The look and feel could be better. The integration with the user could be better. It could also be more user-friendly."
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 58 reviews while Hyland OnBase is ranked 24th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 8 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while Hyland OnBase is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Appian writes "Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Hyland OnBase writes "Stable content and workflow management solution with a valuable retention module". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, Camunda, ServiceNow, OutSystems and Pega BPM, whereas Hyland OnBase is most compared with Alfresco, SharePoint, OpenText Documentum, IBM FileNet and OpenText Extended ECM. See our Appian vs. Hyland OnBase report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors and best Low-Code Development Platforms vendors.
We monitor all Business Process Management (BPM) 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.