We performed a comparison between Appian and webMethods Integration Server 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."We appreciate the drag and drop functionality and the easy to access plug and play features."
"Technical support is quite responsive."
"The most valuable features of Appian are workflow management and the ease with which you can build the UI."
"Even with an on-premise implementation, the scalability is still high, so it is easy to scale up."
"The product's most valuable feature is the low code aspect of development. We can develop an end-to-end VPN solution using a single platform."
"The initial setup was seamless. We didn't run into any hardships at all."
"It has good integrations. We were looking for out-of-the-box integration with both on-prem and publicly accessible data sources. We needed integration with the cloud, OData, our REST API feed, and then on-prem passthrough to go to a SQL database or on-prem APIs through Azure local deployment, etc."
"Appian is a very low code platform. It's very easy to learn and use."
"The product is very stable."
"The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is its reliability. It has a lot of great documentation from the service providers. Additionally, it is easy to use."
"We have a reusable code that we can replicate for any new interfaces."
"They are the building blocks of EAI in SAG products, and they offer a very good platform."
"All of the components are very independent but are tied together to give the business value."
"It frankly fills the gap between IT and business by having approval and policy enforcement on each state and cycle of the asset from the moment it gets created until it is retired."
"It is a bundled product stack for A2A and B2B usage. It is one of the best products which I have used during my integration career."
"One valuable feature is that it is event-driven, so when new data is available on the source it can be quickly processed and displayed. Integration is definitely another useful feature, and B2B is one area where webMethods has its own unique thing going, whereby we can do monitoring of transactions, monitoring of client onboarding, and so on."
"Appian could include other applications that we could reuse for other customers, CRM for example."
"It needs better integration with our existing application ecosystem."
"They should provide more flexibility so designers can create a more picture perfect device."
"Appian is easy to set up, but JBoss is complex. JBoss is the application server for running Appian."
"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."
"Lacks integration with other products."
"Authoring tool is slow to use resulted in limitations on how quickly solutions can be built."
"While Appian is generally flexible, it's rigid in some ways. It takes longer to do something that isn't available out of the box."
"A while ago, they were hacked, and it took them a very long time to open their website again in order to download any service packs or any features. I don't know what they could do differently. I know that they were vulnerable, and there was some downtime, but because they were down, we were unable to download any potential service packs."
"We'd like for them to open up to a more cloud-based solution that could offer more flexibility and maybe a better rules engine or more integration with rules engines."
"As webMethods Integration Server is expensive, that's its area for improvement."
"The installation process should be simplified for first time users and be made more user-friendly."
"Technical support is an area where they can improve."
"We need more dashboards and reporting engines that can provide detailed information for management. In short, we need better analytics."
"The product needs to be improved in a few ways. First, they need to stabilize the components of the whole platform across versions. Also, they should stop replacing old components with brand new ones and, rather, improve by evolution."
"Business monitoring (BAM) needs improvement because the analytics and prediction module very often has performance problems."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
Appian is ranked 4th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 58 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. Appian is rated 8.4, while webMethods Integration Server 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 webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". Appian is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, Camunda, ServiceNow, OutSystems and Pega BPM, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods.io Integration, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks and Boomi iPaaS. See our Appian vs. webMethods Integration Server report.
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.
