We performed a comparison between IBM BPM and Pega BPM based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Pega BPM finishes slightly ahead of IBM BPM. Pega BPM is low-code and very user-friendly. It provides next-generation processes that will convert problem statements into different diagrams and then implement the process, saving time and keeping organizations running efficiently. IBM BPM has a big learning curve and lacks many basic features that other BPM solutions provide.
"One of the reasons for adopting this solution ten years ago was its ease of use. It had a lot of off-the-shelf functionality, and it did not need to be developed specifically for the project that we were implementing. That was the main reason for adopting it in the beginning."
"The installation was straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of IBM BPM is the low code design, and ease of maintenance. Additionally, the integration is good and easy to do."
"It has an elaborated way to explore the IBM BPM processes."
"We use it for automating certain processes which previously took a lot of time for agents to set up different products for customers. They would have to enter a lot of different systems. This has now mostly been automated."
"IBM's deployment box is one huge black box. We can create all the services with our own code or without a codebase, however, we have a huge amount of space with practically no limitation."
"Its Analytics is the most valuable feature."
"The integration and design are valuable features."
"I have a lot of experience in this kind of industry, and Pega is one of the best solutions in terms of performance, capabilities, and the way we develop."
"The most valuable feature of Pega BPMI would be the academy courses, specifically the Product Development Network (PDN). Additionally, our organization has a dedicated Customer Engagement Team that we work closely with to achieve our goals."
"Pega BPM's most valuable feature is the use of CDX to solve problems."
"The solution's case management is its most valuable aspect."
"The solution is operating well overall."
"While Pega technical support is okay, it also depends on the issues you need help with and who your contact is with Pega."
"Decreased time for plane departures and landing, supported analytical insight for planning of three to six month forecasting, and helped with operational decision planning and support."
"Scalable and stable BPM software with a powerful case management feature. It also has good workflow."
"Process versioning was tricky, not straightforward."
"I'm hearing things might be improving, to really deliver on BPM as opposed to simply workflow. That really should be emphasized a lot more than it has been, because a lot of customers will simply implement the process and leave it there, because the product maybe doesn't emphasize BPM as much as it should, as much as maybe they talk about it in the sales process. The whole idea of BPM, is to iteratively improve the process, and in order to do that you have to have the analytics tool with it. A lot of times that doesn't go as far as it should simply because there's a lot more work to be done for that to happen, and just some sort of technical limitations that don't make that as easy as it should be."
"New users will need at least six months to get comfortable with IBM BPM, at least initially. So, there's a learning curve."
"I believe that if the license were cheaper, it would have a greater impact."
"The initial setup process is complex for basic users."
"The interface is limited and should improve in the future."
"We had a weird problem that whenever the database would go down, even for a few seconds, it broke the connection. It would not come back up as it was supposed to. However, working with IBM, we were able to figure out a fix, then it came back up, even after an interruption of the database."
"We had hoped that the product would provide us with plug-ins like Salesforce. Its development environment needs to improve. We expect to see elastic features like containerization. We don't just need an on-prem virtual machine."
"Pega currently is trying to add chatbots to their systems, and it's still quite immature. This part definitely needs to be improved."
"The pricing model needs to be improved. Right now, it's too expensive."
"Lack of stronger cloud support is somewhat inconvenient for users and implementation."
"It's called a local platform but on the other hand, it needs a lot of experience. It's not all that easy to click and plug and play. If you really want to use all the features out of this platform, you definitely need a lot of experience and a lot of training to get there."
"The solution would benefit from more integration capabilities."
"The solution's pricing model or licensing model could be a little better."
"There are some UX shortcomings within the solution. However, it's my understanding that they have addressed them and in the next three months they will come out with a new updated version. They will be moving away from HTML5."
"The UI part needs improvement."
IBM BPM is ranked 5th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 105 reviews while Pega BPM is ranked 3rd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 57 reviews. IBM BPM is rated 7.8, while Pega BPM is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM BPM writes "Offers good case management and its integration with process design but there's a learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pega BPM writes "Provides built-in frameworks that can be reused and reduces time and cost". IBM BPM is most compared with Camunda, Appian, IBM Business Automation Workflow, Apache Airflow and AWS Step Functions, whereas Pega BPM is most compared with ServiceNow, Camunda, Appian, Microsoft Power Apps and OutSystems. See our IBM BPM vs. Pega BPM report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors and best Process Automation 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.