Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Appian vs IBM BPM comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 29, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

Appian
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
5th
Ranking in Process Automation
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
59
Ranking in other categories
Rapid Application Development Software (6th), Low-Code Development Platforms (4th), Process Mining (6th)
IBM BPM
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
8th
Ranking in Process Automation
5th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
109
Ranking in other categories
Application Infrastructure (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Business Process Management (BPM) category, the mindshare of Appian is 6.5%, up from 6.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM BPM is 7.6%, down from 7.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Management (BPM)
 

Featured Reviews

Devashish Mishra - PeerSpot reviewer
Low resource consumption, easy setup, and stable
To determine whether a platform, such as Appian, is suitable for your domain industry, you must first assess whether it offers any out-of-the-box features relevant to your needs. If it does, utilizing that platform would be the best option since it already has the required functionalities. If the available features do not align with your requirements, consider choosing a platform that can easily build such services. Attempting to modify pre-existing features on a platform is a challenging task, and any upgrades to the platform could pose further issues for users. The solution has high performance but the main issue is the lack of customization after deploying it. I rate Appian an eight out of ten.
Mohammed Almalki - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers good case management and its integration with process design but there's a learning curve
If you're already an IBM shop with the necessary skills and personnel, then I would recommend using it. However, it requires a yearly investment. So, if you're prepared for that, then go for it. New users will need at least six months to get comfortable with IBM BPM, at least initially. So, there's a learning curve. Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. Two main reasons: the skillset required to manage it and its integration complexity.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"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."
"The most valuable feature is business automation."
"The initial setup is easy."
"The valuable features include process automation, Appian Portal, and Appian RPA."
"It's a stable product."
"Good workflow engines that bridge the gaps of processes."
"With low-code, we don't need a lot of coding, and then from the plumbing perspective, there is a complete CI/CD pipeline that exists within Appian that can be leveraged for open deployment."
"It has created executable requirements and speeds up the SDLC process greatly."
"We can scale by increasing the infrastructure which is currently running."
"Its dashboard is easy to use and very good. It allows us to customize."
"We like that it does not require a lot of hours to train our people."
"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."
"Process Modelling, simulation and optimization, integration, UI components."
"IBM BPM is a stable solution."
"The possibility to add Java code as embedded .jar, that increases the flexibility of the solution."
"Compliance with the BPMN 2.0 standard."
 

Cons

"Appian could be improved by making it a strict, no-code platform with free-built process packs."
"The product’s pricing could be improved from the developers' perspective."
"It has it's own built-in UI components and doesn't provide much flexibility to customize or extend those components."
"The performance is pretty good, but the distortions need to be optimized in order for it to work well."
"We have clients that want to use Office 365, Microsoft Analytics, and Power Apps. Appian just isn't the same as using something specifically designed to cater to the Microsoft Suite."
"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."
"I would like to see more features for enterprises. They would also benefit from adding documentation and training on their site."
"Appian could improve their customer-facing initiatives."
"From the testing perspective and minor enhancements perspective, customization is something that is a little tedious as compared to new tools. In addition, various open-source tools that are available are not working with IBM BPM."
"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."
"Some of the features are not enough for my business. We need to build custom user management for the many end users affected by BPM."
"​The initial setup was complex. It is not always easy to launch a new platform and it needed better coordination with IBM."
"The user experience, while it has improved, should continue to improve."
"The engine itself tends to accumulate a lot of data that needs to be cleaned up, and that's the kind of thing that keeps it from, in some scenarios, scaling as much as it needs to. And then, when you're building solutions, if you're not careful to keep the screens from being associated with too much data, if you're going to just do things the way that a lot of people would just assume that they can do, without having experience of having made those mistakes before, it will accumulate a lot of data, and that will cause it to perform very badly."
"It can definitely be improved in terms of performance and stability."
"Integration with web services, especially in the standard version of the product."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The licensing will be on a monthly basis. We are estimating that cost to be around $2000 to maybe $3,000 per month. We don't foresee any costs above that."
"It is expensive, but powerful. I would recommend comparing against cheaper licensing products and open source."
"Licensing of Appian is less expensive when compared to other BPMs in the market."
"The cost is calculated on a per-user basis. It might be expensive for small and mid-sized enterprises."
"Appian is very flexible in their pricing. In general, Appian's pricing is much, much lower when compared to competition like Pega or other products. Appian also has a flexible licensing model across geographies. Pega usually goes with a single licensing cost—which is a US-based cost—for all global customers, and it's costly. Whereas Appian has a different regional licensing cost model and it can be cheaper, depending on geography. So Appian's licensing is very flexible, and cheaper when compared to other competition."
"When it comes to pricing, it's definitely not affordable. However, it really depends on the requirements that you're seeking from the solution."
"The cost is a bit higher than other low-code competitors, OutSystems and Mendix. The price needs to be more competitive."
"The license is a bit expensive and the pricing model is sometimes confusing for new users or business users. It is difficult for them to know what volume of usage they will have to be able to purchase the best-suited license at the beginning."
"Our customers do see ROI. They'll identify some particularly painful or uncoordinated processes to start with, then build out from there, picking off low hanging fruit."
"IBM could improve the price. It is far too expensive."
"Starting out with Express can also help reduce the cost for adopting the product."
"It's expensive. All software is always extremely high. The manufacturing cost that we have compared to the selling cost, it's not like you're building a house or building a car. But putting that aside, considering that it's expensive, it's a lot of money. If you compare it with some of the other alternatives in the market, it's a similar price. For instance, if you compare it with Pegasystems, it's a similar price."
"It should provide more flexibility to connect with external systems, and there should be in-built services that can be used to integrate with other systems quickly."
"When considering the features of the solution the price is expensive compared to competitors."
"The price of the solution is fair for an enterprise solution that has both cloud and on-premise deployments and when comparing to competitors. Recently IBM has introduced Cloud Pak which allows for more flexible licensing options for automation and other features."
"Price wise, IBM BPM is cheaper than other similar solutions and has excellent pricing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Management (BPM) solutions are best for your needs.
823,795 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
29%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
31%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Which do you prefer - Appian or Camunda Platform?
Appian is fast when building simple to medium solutions. This solution offers simple drag-and-drop functionality with easy plug-and-play options. The initial setup was seamless and very easy to imp...
Is Appian a suitable solution for beginners who have no additional preparation?
Appian is actually pretty big on educating its users, including with courses that reward you with certifications. There is a whole section on their company’s website where you can check out the edu...
Is it easy to set up Appian or did you have to resort to professional help?
We had some issues when we were setting up Appian. It was quite surprising, since this is a low-code tool which, in its essence, means it is meant for business users and inexperienced beginners. So...
Which is better, IBM BPM or IBM Business Automation Workflow?
We researched both IBM solutions and in the end, we chose Business Automation Workflow. IBM BPM has a good user interface and the BPM coach is a helpful tool. The API is very useful in providing en...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Appian BPM, Appian AnyWhere, Appian Enterprise BPMS
WebSphere Lombardi Edition, IBM Business Process Manager, IBM WebSphere Process Server
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Hansard Global plc, Punch Taverns, Pirelli, Crawford & Company, EDP Renewables, Queensland Government Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (, Bank of Tennessee
Barclays, EmeriCon, Banca Popolare di Milano, CST Consulting, KeyBank, KPMG, Prolifics, Sandhata Technologies Ltd., State of Alaska, Humana S.A., Saperion, esciris, Banco Espirito Santo
Find out what your peers are saying about Appian vs. IBM BPM and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.
823,795 professionals have used our research since 2012.