Bizagi vs TIBCO Business Studio comparison

"The ability to write our own code inside each activity is beneficial. Sometimes we need to create functionality that doesn't come out of the box, and this allows us to do that."

"The most valuable feature is that it is compatible with Visual Studio and .NET, and we can program it. Its speed is very good, and it is also stable and easy to deploy."

"The approval process is simple."

"I like that Bizagi is fully compatible with BPMN 2.0. It also eases the way in which we work with BPMN 2.0 itself, which is a comprehensive and rather complex notation standard."

"Great software for managing my business. I think this is the best business process management software."

"The most valuable feature is the simulation."

"This solution is easy to use and it is a good tool for process modeling."

"It improves visibility and quality, and basically, it avoids human errors."

"The setup cost is definitely reasonable."

"The product's initial setup phase is straightforward."

"The setup cost is definitely reasonable."

"The open source version lacks the option to publish."

"Bizagi needs a way to define categories such as process groups like the APQC framework, PCF, and handle the processes within it."

"The data in Excel that comes out after running the simulation is a bit complicated sometimes to interpret."

"The product used to have a simulation feature, which I had used quite often. However, it's since been discontinued. It might have originally been a paid feature. It would be nice if they could bring it back and offer it for free."

"Its performance needs to be improved. The main thing is that it is limited, especially in terms of the response times. When the processes become a bit large, it is very awkward to work with the Bizagi modeler. When you have already modeled but start to rearrange, it is quite a bit of an effort to change the stuff. When you rearrange lanes or have new structures, it goes rather squiggly up and down and so on, which could be improved. The visual outputs of the DIREPs of the process models are pixelated and have a bad image quality. It is a PNG or JPEG, and you cannot export it as a PDF. When you have rather large processes, you should be able to arrange them hierarchically. Currently, it is not supported. If you use sub-processes and inflate a process, suddenly the arrangement is totally different, and although you know the process, you have to look where is it now. You need a good understanding of the levels of your processes before you start in Bizagi. It can have automatic support for optimal presentation. In BPM, you should have it from the top left to the bottom right. However, in most cases, people don't know how they should arrange it. Therefore, it would be nice to have a suggestion system for different arrangements to be able to better present the process."

"The gateway through which it connects with other vendors, specifically RPA vendors, is one aspect that could be improved."

"Can be difficult for new users."

"One of the features which could be improved is machine learning. Even though this product has been working on this topic, we can see that it still requires improvement."

"An artificial intelligence feature that evaluates the quality of the code developed with one click would definitely be good."

"The interface is actually quite confusing."

"An artificial intelligence feature that evaluates the quality of the code developed with one click would definitely be good."

"The price could be lower."

"The modeling part of the software is free. Most of the time, it is used for this purpose."

"My company uses the free version of the product."

"This solution would be expensive for a company that has a lot of users."

"It is not expensive."

"I was using the free version."

"We didn't use the licensed versions where you could exactly go into automatization. However, we looked at the pricing in the beginning, and the only thing that I remember is that it was too expensive for the things we were using because our clients would also have to license the product. One client said that it was too expensive for the benefit they get out of it."

"Pricing is good value for money."

"For my company, the tool costs about 2,0,000 Euros for three years...If one is bad and ten is good, I rate the price as one out of ten."