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

Appian vs OpenText ProVision comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 6, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Appian
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
7th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
62
Ranking in other categories
Process Automation (6th), Rapid Application Development Software (5th), Low-Code Development Platforms (4th), Process Mining (6th)
OpenText ProVision
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
46th
Average Rating
6.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Architecture Management (28th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Business Process Management (BPM) category, the mindshare of Appian is 6.1%, down from 6.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText ProVision is 0.3%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Management (BPM)
 

Featured Reviews

Srimanta Pandit - PeerSpot reviewer
Flexible, improves operational efficiency, and reduces the time taken to complete processes
The solution’s turnaround time for development is better compared to other tools. The solution enables fast development. The traceability of the processor is good. There is much more governance and regulations on the processers. The tool reduces the time of the processes by 30% to 40%. The solution’s low-code aspect has greatly impacted the development and deployment speed. One of the major reasons we are using the product is that we can reuse the modules. The developers can reuse all the modules. It enables us to make subsequent developments in less time. The prebuilt modules can be deployed within two to three weeks. The tool is very flexible. Compared to other platforms, the Appian product team was agile in quickly customizing things for us.
reviewer1944672 - PeerSpot reviewer
Good attribute attachment but problems with collaboration
I primarily use OpenText ProVision to create our end-to-end process repository and library for different parts of the organization, capturing the collaboration process to get the right inputs OpenText ProVision's best feature is the capability to attach a variety of attributes and extract and…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"Appian's most valuable feature is that we can create end-to-end process workflows with minimum turnaround."
"It provides us with real-time data on all connected systems in terms of how they're integrated with each other and how they are performing in a workflow manner."
"The setup is easy."
"Rapid development with low-code makes it easier to quickly get apps implemented and the time to break-even and ROI is much faster."
"Good workflow engines that bridge the gaps of processes."
"The valuable features include process automation, Appian Portal, and Appian RPA."
"The most valuable feature is business automation."
"The stability of the product is very good."
"OpenText ProVision's best feature is the capability to attach a variety of attributes and extract and analyze that information."
"All the features come as part of a standard license."
 

Cons

"Authoring tool is slow to use resulted in limitations on how quickly solutions can be built."
"The graphical user interface could be easier to use. It should be simplified."
"​Appian is easy to set up, but JBoss is complex. JBoss is the application server for running Appian."
"The solution needs more features. For example, a way to connect to our viewing database, to record, and more interface and component design."
"There are some restrictions with respect to using external components within Appian. So, for example, if we do not have a particular feature available, there's a long cycle of getting approvals and all of that. That does not offer flexibility, which definitely can be improved on."
"Lacks business rules management as part of the solution."
"There could be a scope of enhancement for capturing the variety of use cases."
"If that had more DevOps capabilities, it would be an excellent product."
"OpenText ProVision's collaboration management is quite complicated and difficult to use."
"Lacks the ability to have your own in-house developments."
"Integrating with or interfacing with other tools like data management tools would be very helpful."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing of Appian is less expensive when compared to other BPMs in the market."
"It is expensive, but powerful. I would recommend comparing against cheaper licensing products and open source."
"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 depends on the number of users, although I recommend taking an unlimited license."
"I'm sure it is cost-effective, but right now, we're just toying around with it. So, I don't have any hard numbers."
"The pricing can be a little confusing to customers."
"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."
"Product pricing compared to some of the earlier vendors, like IBM, CA, and Oracle, is quite well-priced. Although, we do feel that as we increase the number of users and the workload increases, we will have to spend more."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Management (BPM) solutions are best for your needs.
848,253 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
29%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
6%
Energy/Utilities Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Construction Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Appian BPM, Appian AnyWhere, Appian Enterprise BPMS
Metastorm ProVision
 

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
Delta Technology, Export Development Canada, Rompetrol, Salt River Project, AMEC, U.S. Air Force, HP Consulting & Integration
Find out what your peers are saying about Appian vs. OpenText ProVision and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
848,253 professionals have used our research since 2012.