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)
18th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
Process Automation (16th), Workload Automation (20th)
OpenText MBPM
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
40th
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 May 2026, in the Business Process Management (BPM) category, the mindshare of Nintex Process Platform is 1.8%, down from 2.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText MBPM is 0.9%, up from 0.3% 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

"I find it useful to utilize LDAP query action to find out the status of a particular user."
"The capacity to integrate with external platforms. It's great to be able to call web services or other external services."
"Easily maintained and customization is quite simple."
"The solution offers very good integration capabilities. We've never had issues integrating it without solutions."
"It provides data accuracy with fewer failures."
"It is for process automation, and it saves a lot of time and resources."
"It's easy to learn. However, there is very little content available for the Nintex also, but they are providing their own documentation and all. So, it's easy to learn also."
"This solution is very easy to use and customize, using almost zero coding, and because it's built on SharePoint which many companies in our country have experience with, it was easy to adapt the application in our environment."
"Not just the solution's automation capabilities, but we like everything about it since we are more of a system integrator."
"OpenText MBPM is a stable solution."
 

Cons

"Unfortunately, Nintex Workflow is not that stable. We are looking at shifting to another tool."
"The solution does not integrate with many platforms."
"I think it was lacking a little bit in its multiple in-house processes and other processes. So there is a little bit of a gap in collaboration."
"Converting a document from PDF to MS Word, or vice versa, needs to be improved."
"We cannot use the same solution on cloud."
"The Workflow Designer needs improvement."
"Because we're on-premise, it's more complicated to provide access to their own network."
"Built-in reporting on-prem is limited and clunky at best."
"The user interface could be better in OpenText MBPM."
"There are shortcomings in the solution's support and documentation part."
"The user interface could be better in OpenText MBPM."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There is an initial fee when purchasing and a fee for maintenance afterward."
"The price of this solution is affordable but the problem in Algeria is our community is a bit slower. The new clients might feel the solution is a bit expensive."
"Our maintenance costs are reduced."
"We pay on a yearly basis. It's my understanding that we pay approximately $11,000/year."
"For the initial hundred users, the cost is $21,000 per year, which I find too high."
"It's more suited for enterprise level, not for small or medium-sized businesses (SMBs)."
"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."
"Prices for licenses of K2 are high."
"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.
892,611 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Construction Company
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise25
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: April 2026.
892,611 professionals have used our research since 2012.