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

OpenText AppWorks vs ProcessMaker 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

OpenText AppWorks
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
20th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
ProcessMaker
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
38th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Business Process Management (BPM) category, the mindshare of OpenText AppWorks is 0.5%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ProcessMaker is 0.7%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Management (BPM)
 

Featured Reviews

Senthil Natarajan - PeerSpot reviewer
The solution enables automation of supply chain and invoice processing with comprehensive integration and workflow capabilities
The main valuable features of OpenText AppWorks ( /products/opentext-appworks-reviews ) are the BPM ( /products/informatica-intelligent-data-management-cloud-idmc-reviews ) modules. There is the standard BPM ( /products/informatica-intelligent-data-management-cloud-idmc-reviews ) modeler and a case modeler. These are two strong features from the workflow layer. Additionally, the integration capability of the solution is beneficial. With these features, we are able to use OpenText AppWorks for automating supply-chain-related problems, vendor process automations, and invoice automations. We have built almost twenty-plus types of solutions and implemented around three hundred fifty-plus implementations. The solution also allows us to integrate it with our ERP ( /categories/erp ) system.
UchechiSylvanus - PeerSpot reviewer
Works well, but its interface should be a bit more user-friendly
We use it for our process flows and levels of approvals, but I am not managing it directly Its performance, stability, and security are fine. Its interface should be a bit more user-friendly. I have been using this solution for close to a year. It is stable. It is easy to scale. We currently…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"AppWorks is a very quick development platform with low-coding capability and strong integration with third-party systems."
"Its customer support is reliable and easy to approach."
"In terms of the scalability and the handling of complexity, the customers are satisfied, and we also have confidence in the solution to achieve whatever implementations are required."
"OpenText AppWorks has standard features such as system-to-system and human-to-human integrations, but what I find most valuable in the solution is its monitoring feature that tells you more about your processes, how to restart and how to stop each process, etc."
"One of the most useful features is the code is customizable, we can make it our own."
"The good part of OpenText AppWorks is that all of its components are together in one platform, including integration capability, UI capability, and workflow capability."
"We've automated several processes, including purchase requisition to purchase orders, RFQ processes, vendor onboarding, project budgeting, and business case creation. The recent versions of OpenText AppWorks, especially those incorporating low-code functionalities, have had a significant positive impact. In some cases, we've observed a remarkable reduction in development time, ranging from 50 to 75 percent. The MTP model and life cycle have facilitated rapid development cycles."
"From a business perspective, the most valuable aspect lies in the optimization of processes."
"What I like most is the seamlessness of the workflow capabilities."
"Its performance, stability, and security are fine."
 

Cons

"A room for improvement in OpenText AppWorks is its user interface. It should have mobile compatibility because right now, you still have to make two applications with a user interface for Android and a user interface for iOS, so if OpenText AppWorks can provide one UI that can be used across all devices, that would make the solution better. An additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of OpenText AppWorks is a better UI in terms of the look and feel. Another feature I'd like to see in the next version of the solution is mobile compatibility because, at the moment, you have to make your application mobile-ready or compatible with mobile devices because there's no provision for it in OpenText AppWorks."
"AppWorks could be improved by including BPM simulation."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing structure."
"OpenText AppWork's low-code capabilities can be enhanced by integrating them with AI offerings like Aviator."
"There could be some improvements with the low code design part. It could be more customizable and more user friendly."
"From an enterprise point, their pricing is a little bit crazy because they don't have a SaaS model."
"The solution needs to continue to enhance the low-coding feature within the product itself."
"The crucial missing element is the archival function."
"This solution only supports basic text, but we would like to be able to insert components such as rich text, graphs, charts, pictures, and other objects."
"Its interface should be a bit more user-friendly."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There is a user-based perpetual license."
"The price is on the higher side."
"Pricing for OpenText AppWorks, specifically in the Indian market, is reasonable, but I'm not aware if it's still reasonable outside of India. The licensing cost is based on the number of licenses and the number of users. OpenText AppWorks has different licensing options."
"AppWorks is pretty expensive."
"The licensing cost varies based on several factors, such as the size of the customer and the domain URL."
"We have a yearly license."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Management (BPM) solutions are best for your needs.
847,959 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
10%
Insurance Company
10%
Retailer
8%
Financial Services Firm
25%
Computer Software Company
16%
Government
12%
Educational Organization
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about OpenText AppWorks?
We've automated several processes, including purchase requisition to purchase orders, RFQ processes, vendor onboarding, project budgeting, and business case creation. The recent versions of OpenTex...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OpenText AppWorks?
From an enterprise point, their pricing is a little bit crazy because they don't have a SaaS model. They have to go with a perpetual model, which makes it look crazy initially. But over a period, i...
What needs improvement with OpenText AppWorks?
They can improve the UI capability. Recently, they launched a low-code platform, called entity modeling, which they can enhance further. It would be beneficial if OpenText ( /products/data-express-...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
ProcessMaker Workflow Management & BPM, ProcessMaker BPM
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Red Deer County, DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance, Bangkok Airways, PBS, CIZ (Netherlands Ministry of Health), The Dutch Ministry of Defence, Mercer
Tulsa Community College, Sirius College, Mcredit Vietnam, Oregon City Schools, Lakozy Toyota, HyperCube
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText AppWorks vs. ProcessMaker and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
847,959 professionals have used our research since 2012.