Top 10 OpenText Operations Orchestration Alternatives

3.9 out of 5

26 reviews
92% willing to recommend

968 followers

Top OpenText Operations Orchestration Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to OpenText Operations Orchestration based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include Camunda, Control-M, and Appian. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions.

OpenText Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with OpenText, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.

Get the alternatives report

Camunda

4.1 out of 5

Camunda

4.1 out of 5

OpenText Operations Orchestration excels in robust process automation suited for complex IT environments. In comparison, Camunda's BPMN-based engine offers more flexibility in microservices and cloud architectures. Camunda's lightweight architecture enables quick deployment, while OpenText supports comprehensive enterprise needs with higher initial costs.

Download Camunda vs. OpenText Operations Orchestration Report

Pricing

OpenText Operations Orchestration presents a more straightforward setup cost, while Camunda's is more flexible, highlighting their differing approaches to initial deployment expenses.

View comparison

Pricing

OpenText Operations Orchestration presents a more straightforward setup cost, while Camunda's is more flexible, highlighting their differing approaches to initial deployment expenses.

Control-M

4.4 out of 5

Control-M

4.4 out of 5

Control-M provides comprehensive workflow management for complex environments, appealing to enterprises needing robust automation. In comparison, OpenText Operations Orchestration excels in adaptability, offering agile deployment and scalable solutions, making it ideal for organizations seeking streamlined, cost-effective process integration and rapid ROI.

Download Control-M vs. OpenText Operations Orchestration Report

Pricing

Control-M setup costs are highlighted as higher than OpenText Operations Orchestration, which is praised for its affordability.

View comparison

Pricing

Control-M setup costs are highlighted as higher than OpenText Operations Orchestration, which is praised for its affordability.

Appian

4.2 out of 5

Appian

4.2 out of 5

Appian is known for its ease of use and rapid deployment, making it ideal for businesses seeking quick, low-code solutions. In comparison, OpenText Operations Orchestration excels in scalability and integration, offering better value through its extensive feature set for complex IT environments.

Download Appian vs. OpenText Operations Orchestration Report

Pricing

Appian offers a more streamlined setup process with lower initial costs, while OpenText Operations Orchestration involves higher setup expenses.

View comparison

Pricing

Appian offers a more streamlined setup process with lower initial costs, while OpenText Operations Orchestration involves higher setup expenses.

IBM BPM

3.9 out of 5

IBM BPM

3.9 out of 5

IBM BPM excels with integration capabilities and intuitive process modeling, enhancing efficiency. In comparison, OpenText Operations Orchestration is lauded for its automation features and flexibility, streamlining processes. A tech buyer might favor IBM BPM for scalability or OpenText for cost-effective ROI and rapid deployment.

Download IBM BPM vs. OpenText Operations Orchestration Report

Pricing

IBM BPM features a straightforward setup with moderate costs, whereas OpenText Operations Orchestration requires a higher initial investment but offers greater flexibility.

View comparison

Pricing

IBM BPM features a straightforward setup with moderate costs, whereas OpenText Operations Orchestration requires a higher initial investment but offers greater flexibility.

ServiceNow Orchestration

4.1 out of 5

ServiceNow Orchestration

4.1 out of 5

OpenText Operations Orchestration offers strong integration capabilities and versatility, appealing to those needing complex automation environments. In comparison, ServiceNow Orchestration provides comprehensive features and seamless cloud integration, benefiting enterprises requiring robust platform services and rapid, feature-rich deployments.

Download OpenText Operations Orchestration vs. ServiceNow Orchestration Report

Pricing

OpenText Operations Orchestration involves a lower setup cost, while ServiceNow Orchestration demands a higher initial investment, highlighting a significant cost disparity between the two solutions.

View comparison

Pricing

OpenText Operations Orchestration involves a lower setup cost, while ServiceNow Orchestration demands a higher initial investment, highlighting a significant cost disparity between the two solutions.

Microsoft System Center Orchestrator

3.8 out of 5

Microsoft System Center Orchestrator

3.8 out of 5

OpenText Operations Orchestration offers advanced workflow automation suited for complex environments. In comparison, Microsoft System Center Orchestrator seamlessly integrates within Microsoft infrastructures. Choose OpenText for diverse setups; opt for Microsoft for integrated, cost-effective solutions in Microsoft-heavy environments.

Download Microsoft System Center Orchestrator vs. OpenText Operations Orchestration Report

Pricing

OpenText Operations Orchestration has higher setup costs, while Microsoft System Center Orchestrator offers a more budget-friendly installation option.

View comparison

Pricing

OpenText Operations Orchestration has higher setup costs, while Microsoft System Center Orchestrator offers a more budget-friendly installation option.

Related categories

Process Automation

Robotic Process Automation (RPA)

Business Process Design