We performed a comparison between iGrafx Process360 Live Platform 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."It has simplified compliance with regulations and company standards."
"iGrafx gives you the capability of documenting your process and then the ability to use it as a tool for analysis to identify the loopholes and shortcomings of your process."
"Another good feature is that the numbering of the shapes in iGrafx is much easier and more convenient, in comparison to what is found in Visio. So far I haven't found anything similar to what I have with iGrafx, in that regard."
"The solution is very stable."
"Web diagramming and RACI have helped expedite the process, capture, and ownership initiatives of our organization."
"Provides a valuable BPMN feature."
"We found the technical support to be helpful."
"Simulation is most valuable."
"It is highly user-friendly and easy to use, even for those who are not familiar with product modeling."
"The most valuable feature for me is the collaboration point of view, where everybody has a single view, or source of truth, and everybody sees the same thing. Everyone can comment, contribute, and discuss the processes itself, which makes it easier to funnel down the most value adding comments and make the relevant changes to the processes. This leads to the next best iteration or version of your process."
"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."
"A complete business project management suite which seems to open endless possibility."
"This product has helped us to work within standards for process planning."
"It is possible to do the whole drafting process at the same time in Sagnavio so you don't have a double effort of writing it once, arranging it and entering it again."
"I would say the collaboration features are very useful to us, because we are a European organization, so we are not in one location. This is an easy way to share with other people and ask them for feedback. That is the use case for us."
"One of the most valuable features is ease of use which has really been a good thing to put into the business. People like tools that they can just pick up and use straight-away."
"With iGrafx, the implementation and the licensing were pretty complex."
"It can be more user-friendly."
"It would be nice to have a Spanish user interface available to us."
"The look and feel, along with the ease of use of the solution's web modeling version, is an area with certain shortcomings."
"Dragging and dropping shapes is not as user-friendly as in Visio. In Visio, it's very easy to work with shapes and in very few minutes you can plot a whole, multi swim-lane, cross-functional process."
"The solution could benefit from improvements to its interface. More specifically, when compared to other tools, the process modeling features lack symbols or object types that are used to represent the information or data within the process."
"It would be helpful to be able to do more analytics and generate reports on historical documents that have already been uploaded to the server."
"In the next release, I would like to see more layers like three, four, and five. It might be possible but I haven't seen it yet."
"We would like a better way to give users the correct permissions for processes, whether to view or design."
"If you start from scratch then I think this product would be ideal, but if you already have something then it may or may not suit you."
"I would like to see more predictive analytics. The tool already has all the process maps, but it could offer a more proactive improvement offering. For example, they could put a little bit more machine learning behind it."
"There is a lot of room for improvement. We've submitted a lot of OSS requests for special inputs we need, like glossary or dictionary entries in Quick Model. Currently, that's not functional."
"The licensing model could be better."
"Signavio Process Manager needs to have an integrated document management system to better work with processes that rely heavily on documents and document flows."
"I think the biggest selling point that Signavio talks about is its collaborative aspect. However, there's still a lot more improvement in terms of what they can do, how they receive comments, address comments, whether they actually provide feedback, etc. There is still a little bit more improvement to be made on those areas."
"We sometimes experience downtime or a dropped connection, so I think that the stability can be improved for the SaaS solution."
More iGrafx Process360 Live Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
iGrafx Process360 Live Platform is ranked 15th in Business Process Design with 15 reviews while SAP Signavio Process Manager is ranked 6th in Business Process Design with 58 reviews. iGrafx Process360 Live Platform is rated 8.4, while SAP Signavio Process Manager is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of iGrafx Process360 Live Platform writes " A reasonably stable BPM solution useful for process governance and process mining". 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". iGrafx Process360 Live Platform is most compared with Visio, ARIS BPA, Camunda, ADONIS and Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, whereas SAP Signavio Process Manager is most compared with Celonis, ARIS BPA, Camunda, Visio and ADONIS. See our SAP Signavio Process Manager vs. iGrafx Process360 Live Platform report.
See our list of best Business Process Design vendors and best Business Process Management (BPM) 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.