No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Nintex Process Platform vs OpenText MBPM comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

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

Nintex Process Platform
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
17th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
Process Automation (18th), Workload Automation (21st)
OpenText MBPM
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
41st
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Business Process Management (BPM) category, the mindshare of Nintex Process Platform is 1.8%, down from 2.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText MBPM is 0.9%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Management (BPM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Nintex Process Platform1.8%
OpenText MBPM0.9%
Other97.3%
Business Process Management (BPM)
 

Featured Reviews

Hafiz Muhammad Usama - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager Mobility & Digitalization at Fatima group
Have experienced challenges integrating with other systems but have benefited from improved process automation
There are multiple areas that need improvement. Nintex Process Platform needs integration with other platforms such as Salesforce and other CRM platforms. There should be actions available so we can directly integrate with these systems. Additionally, there is a gap in mathematical actions and logical actions. We need to parse data, and if we receive data in JSON, there is no action available in Nintex Process Platform to parse the data and extract data from that JSON string. Such actions and logical actions must be available in Nintex Process Platform to increase its capability. For us, Nintex Process Platform is configurable with SQL Server, but there is no configuration option available with Oracle. We also use Oracle in multiple processes, but we have found no way to directly configure Nintex Process Platform with Oracle. We have to use SQL Server in between. We have to create a link server within SQL Server as a bypass to retrieve or post data into Oracle. There were multiple improvement points available.
Jaideep MS - PeerSpot reviewer
Practice Director at a outsourcing company with 51-200 employees
A solution offering good automation capabilities while needing to improve its support and documentation
I think the solution's support could do a better job. I rate the support somewhere around four and five out of ten. There is a hoard of people that they get in touch with while contacting them. So we've done some work with them in the past. I mean, we've been a support partner for a while. But apart from that, in terms of understanding the issues for a particular technology, I think there is a lack of people at their end. So they don't really have many people with them. And by the time we could get hold of the right person, especially for production issues, it's a little too late.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is for process automation, and it saves a lot of time and resources."
"The technical support is very good."
"K2's best feature is that it can solve complex tasks, issues, and projects with little coding."
"Out of box connectivity with UiPath."
"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."
"Easily maintained and customization is quite simple."
"I think that it adds value to any organization, mainly in terms of business applications where you need workflows."
"It has integration with BI and Analytics tools, and RPA toolsets as well."
"OpenText MBPM is a stable solution."
"Not just the solution's automation capabilities, but we like everything about it since we are more of a system integrator."
 

Cons

"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."
"Difficult to include external partners with the solution deployed on-premise."
"We would like to have access to an on-premises solution. In our country, we have a relationship with Central Bank of Egypt, which do noes not allow cloud solutions to be used. They should offer an on-prem solution with a flexible price license."
"​Bring all features available from the on-premise product into the cloud version and the workflow error reporting.​"
"The solution does not integrate with many platforms."
"There is room for improvement in the user experience in the forms."
"The management server and the admin page where you can manage processes need improvement."
"There are shortcomings in the solution's support and documentation part."
"The user interface could be better in OpenText MBPM."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Offering a licensing model that allows for multiple small workflows would be a huge improvement to an already great platform."
"Comparatively, it's expensive."
"The enterprise version has some additional features that I would like to use, but the price is not fair."
"This solution is affordable and is cheaper than most alternatives on the market. We have a standard cloud license that costs about 20k per year."
"The initial investment in K2 is heavy. Currently, the expenditure is $28,000 for a year. After we go to the cloud, it is going to be per seat and probably cheaper. Currently, there are unlimited users."
"Prices for licenses of K2 are high."
"The product’s price is competitive compared to other vendors."
"We pay on a yearly basis. It's my understanding that we pay approximately $11,000/year."
"There is an annual license to use OpenText MBPM."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is cost-efficient, and ten is expensive, I rate the pricing somewhere between nine and ten since it is a costly solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Management (BPM) solutions are best for your needs.
902,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Construction Company
10%
Computer Software Company
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise26
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for K2?
Nintex Process Platform is expensive. Prices relate to both features and the professional services necessary due to our lack of an implementation team.
What needs improvement with K2?
There are multiple areas that need improvement. Nintex Process Platform needs integration with other platforms such as Salesforce and other CRM platforms. There should be actions available so we ca...
What is your primary use case for K2?
Our organization is a fertilizer company where we develop workflows regarding processes occurring at the plant. Most of them are safety projects, and a few other projects include off-boarding proje...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

K2 blackpearl, K2 Five, Nintex Workflow
Metastorm BPM
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SEA Corp, Omnicom Group, Verizon, STIHL
Kommunales Rechenzentrum Minden-Ravensburg/Lippe (KRZ), Hawksford Group, Gauteng Provincial Government Department of Economic Development, Deutsche Post DHL, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, London Underground, Great Clips, Fiat, Rompetrol, Gaston Memorial Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Bachmann, Alliance Healthcare
Find out what your peers are saying about Nintex Process Platform vs. OpenText MBPM and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.