We performed a comparison between Hyland OnBase and Nintex Process Platform 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 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 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."
"The solution is very developed and we are not taking full advantage of its functionalities."
"The most valuable features are that it's very secure and provides audit trails for our documents."
"I like the cloud and its integrability."
"The technical support is very good."
"The SharePoint feature is a really good connection, there are many features that are good."
"This solution is very easy to use and customize, using almost zero coding. It's built on SharePoint which many companies in our country have experience with. This made it easy to adapt the application in our environment."
"It leverages the out-of-the-box SharePoint back-end. This means that you don’t need to install or deploy additional infrastructure to support Nintex Workflow, unlike some of its competitors."
"It provides data accuracy with fewer failures."
"Out of box connectivity with UiPath."
"Allows to use workflow for simple approvals and LazyApproval. The feature is easy to implement for mobile approval."
"We were able to meet all of the requirements for functionality that were specified, and we did not experience challenges where we had to compromise on functionality."
"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."
"The dashboards do have some room for improvement as compared to the other vendors which are there in the market."
"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."
"Hawkeye is emerging as a reporting solution, but as a V1 product it’s not very useful yet."
"The licensing needs to be improved. Right now, we find it's getting more expensive to use the product."
"Currently, a notable challenge lies in the alignment of user experiences across the eight or nine applications within the suite. Transitioning between applications can be somewhat cumbersome due to varying user interfaces. However, the provider is actively addressing this concern by consistently rolling out updates every four to five months, aimed at harmonizing and streamlining the interfaces. This ongoing effort is expected to enhance the user experience over time. In terms of functionality and features, the platform stands out, offering flexibility with the option for both on-premises and cloud deployment. This flexibility extends to the RPA tool, providing clients with choices tailored to their preferences. An advantage lies in the shared security and data infrastructure across the toolset, facilitating smooth data transfer between applications. This contrasts with experiences with Oracle, where data transfer may involve complexities such as the need for intermediary file formats like TXL or SCZ."
"Currently, copying workflow actions from one workflow to another is not possible. Also, the Office 365 solution is not as mature as on-premise."
"K2's support for DevOp team corporations is weak."
"User interface could use some improvement. Perhaps integration with Visual Studio or SharePoint Designer would be useful."
"The license pricing is too high currently for Nintex Workflow."
"Difficult to include external partners with the solution deployed on-premise."
Hyland OnBase is ranked 24th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 8 reviews while Nintex Process Platform is ranked 9th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 21 reviews. Hyland OnBase is rated 8.0, while Nintex Process Platform is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Hyland OnBase writes "Stable content and workflow management solution with a valuable retention module". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Nintex Process Platform writes "Offers good integration capabilities and easy to learn and good stability". Hyland OnBase is most compared with Alfresco, SharePoint, OpenText Documentum, IBM FileNet and Box, whereas Nintex Process Platform is most compared with Camunda, IBM BPM, Appian, Pega BPM and Bizagi. See our Hyland OnBase vs. Nintex Process Platform report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) 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.