Appian Reviews

Normally, we are building platforms. At the moment, we are running 19 big projects, and we had never used Appian before. One of our customers is a big consulting company, and one of their customers wanted a project with Appian.

They don't have Appian developers, but we have a very good team. They reached out to us and they had some projects in 2022 with Appian, and they asked for our support. I gave my BAs and PMs an introductory level Appian course, and now some of the developers are doing the associate and lead developer part for Appian.

The application life cycle is very clear. I started learning it and giving some workshops to my team. Creating the users and the building is very structured. Documentation is nice and it's easy to learn.

There's a nice fundamentals course that I can ask my project managers to easily learn, while the other local, no-code platforms don't have that option.

The certification is pretty expensive, and it doesn't allow for a tailored UI. I'm a little bit disappointed with the exam. It's different from the preparation, training, and sample exam.

One of my lead developers failed to pass this morning. I'm a bit sad because it's $200. If I ask 10 of my developers to get a certificate, it's $2,000. It's a scaleup company, so we have more than 60 people at the moment, but I can't ask most of my developers to get the certificate.

From a developer point of view, I can't try this in the free version because you can't buy one or two subscriptions. You need to get the minimum package for premium, which is about one hundred seats.

From the first day, I wanted to see the capability of reaching other functions, Google Cloud services, and cognitive services. There is already an OCR, intelligent document that comes in the My Cloud and which Appian gave me as a sample. I can't build it because it uses the Google cognitive services as a backend, and this is the thing that we couldn't try. 

You can't really test the software properly without actually buying the license first.

Something I would like to see improved is an SQL database connection.

We have been using Appian for over a month. We are still on the trial license instead of the full license.

I'm happy about the stability. It looks promising for me.

I can't predict how many developers it requires. It really depends on the type and size of the app and the capability of the developers.

We run a one-hour workshop from scratch. My developer can create the users' data, custom data types, a small UI, and a nice flow and read right from the databases easily. In one hour, he can complete as many tasks that normally take many days.

The scalability is a bit limited for the SQL databases because for some of my cognitive services, I'm using no SQL databases in the cloud. Appian doesn't support it. Appian only supports relational databases. There is no database for the unstructured data.

We are building platforms, but normally we are fully in Azure and the whole platform is in Azure, but because some of our customers and potential customers want to use Appian, I'm preparing my team for such opportunities.

You can't really test the software properly without actually buying the license first. Certification is expensive.

Appian is like a butter knife, not a Swiss Army knife. It will serve the business user's solution. It'll create a very good thing and the application is clear.

I really enjoy it because the PowerApps from Microsoft mature and are internally connected to other platforms inside Microsoft.

However, it doesn't explain the learning part very well non-technical people. There is a separation, but in the Appian fundamentals, this course is just for the BAs and the PMs. If they want to lead a project with Appian, this is the minimum standard that they need to know. At that point, it's easy for me to train project managers and business analysts. I think that's the advantage of Appian.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10. 

My humble advice to someone who is looking to implement this solution is that they need to replicate. It's a so-called no-code platform, but it's not no-code because it has its own coding site. That's why they need to build one of their own solutions with Appian first to understand the how-to-dos first and become more confident. Luckily, the learning curve is not that steep.

There are multiple use cases of Appian. A banking customer uses it more for agent onboarding; we are working on contract management for a manufacturing customer; and we are working on an incident management system for an airport. There are almost seven to eight use cases, as of now. 

We don't use Appian, we are partners and we implement this solution for customers. I'm working on both on-premises and cloud-based deployment. Appian's deployment is hybrid. 

Appian has many valuable features, the first being the ease of development—rapid development. Second, the process of learning the product and tool is faster when compared to its peers in the market. It's closer to low-code, and while it's still not very easy, it's more low-code than other products in the industry. Appian has a good user interface, a seamless model user interface, which comes without additional coding. It can also integrate with multiple systems. 

There are four areas I believe Appian could improve in. The first is a seamless contact center integration. Appian does not have a contact center feature. The second is advanced features in RPA. The third would be chatbot and email bot integration—while Appian comes with chatbot and email bot, it's not as mature as it should be, compared to the competition. The fourth area would be next best action, since there is not much of this sort of feature in Appian. These are all features which competitors' products have, and in a mature manner, whereas Appian lacks on these four areas. I see customers who are moving from Appian to Pega because these features are not in Appian. 

I have been working with Appian for three years. 

The stability and performance are good. Appian is focusing a lot on this because they recently came out with a Kubernetes system acquisition, which is providing them the ability to scale as well as an expansion model that can be as stable as required. The performance is very good, as this solution is available across multiple cloud systems. 

As far as maintenance, it's pretty straightforward because Appian, as a company, comes with very mature hotfixes when required, as well as seamless upgrades. As long as you do not do any customizations—which is not recommended—it is pretty easy and straightforward to maintain, and does not take much effort. 

Appian is definitely easy to scale, especially if you understand the requirements. It's a good architecture. 

Of our customers who use Appian, I would say most of them are medium-sized. Next would be large-sized, and then there are not many small-sized customers. Medium- and large-sized companies mostly go for Appian. 

I would rate the technical support of Appian about a seven out of ten because there is definitely room for improvement when compared to the other product support we are seeing. 

The initial setup is a simple process. If it's on cloud, it does not take much time. If it's on-premise, you have to have all the required hardware. It takes around four hours. 

We implement this solution for customers. 

Appian is very flexible in their pricing. In general, Appian's pricing is much, much lower when compared to competition like Pega or other products. Appian also has a flexible licensing model across geographies. Pega usually goes with a single licensing cost—which is a US-based cost—for all global customers, and it's costly. Whereas Appian has a different regional licensing cost model and it can be cheaper, depending on geography. So Appian's licensing is very flexible, and cheaper when compared to other competition. 

The pricing is pretty straightforward. If you're going for a cloud-based deployment, there are no additional costs because you're just going to be on the cloud. However, if you're going to deploy it on-premise, you would need to install software, so you might have to procure your own database and servers and everything. The current recommendation, and what most customers are going for, is the cloud because it's easy to maintain. There aren't really any costs except for the licensing. 

Pega and Appian are both good BPM platforms. The area where Appian has the advantage is that it's really low-code. It takes much less effort when compared to Pega, both for developing and for setup and implementation. Within about 30 days, maximum, you can build out a product in Appian, whereas it will take you much longer in Pega. However, in regard to the four areas in which I believe Appian is lacking, Pega has all those features in a mature manner: seamless contact center integration, advanced features in RPA, mature chatbot and email bot integration, and next best action.

I would rate Appian an eight out of ten. 

If you are looking for a fast, rapid rollout of applications and you have multiple medium-scale and small-scale processes that you want to roll out at a faster pace, with ease of maintenance, then Appian is a good product to go with. Appian can also be leveraged for large-scale implementation—for example, financial service customers, for loan origination or claims organization—but you would really need to understand your requirements in order to achieve this with Appian. Whereas with Pega, it has framework for loan originations and everything, which Appian doesn't come with. Appian is a plain vanilla product, and if you go for a large-scale core implementation, then you should have enough information and requirements to capture it. Appian is best suited to mid-scale and small-scale processes and a rapid rollout. 

Appian can be used to helps organizations build applications and workflows.

The solution's most valuable features are the regular periodic and quarterly updates, they are very useful updates. They keep improving the solution more often, and that helps the platform or code always be up to date with the latest features.

The solution could improve by being more responsive when dealing with large quantities of data. Additionally, they can make the decision or rules engine better. It cannot handle too many rules or too many decisions at once.

I have been using Appian for approximately six years.

The solution is stable.

The technical support is amazing. They have high availability when attending to tickets. The extent to which they go to support you is amazing. They go down deep into the issue you are facing and get you to the right expertise. You can access support through forums and the telephone which they respond quickly with details on a solution.

The standalone and distributed environment installations are straightforward. There are clear instructions, documentation, and support available. However, the installation into a distributed environment can be more challenging.

I have had assistance from Appian support for the implementations.

The license is a bit expensive and the pricing model is sometimes confusing for new users or business users. It is difficult for them to know what volume of usage they will have to be able to purchase the best-suited license at the beginning.

I rate Appian an eight out of ten.

We use Appian for business process management.

I like how quickly you can build applications. The low code aspect of it is really useful to get things out to market quickly. Compared to other code tools that I've seen, Appian has a more robust rules engine.

I've been an Appian consultant for three years now.

Appian virtually has a 99.99% uptime rating. It's very stable. 

Appian is very scalable. There's a lot of options for bigger enterprises, like high availability. It's enterprise-grade for smaller to mid-sized businesses.

I have used their tech support, honestly, I'd probably give their support a rating of eight out of 10. They work pretty hard to try to figure out what's going on if there's an issue.

I wouldn't say their response time is long, but it could be quicker. 

There's a one-time setup fee. I think they usually set it up for you. For the typical business user, it's straightforward as they don't have to do anything.

The pricing can be a little confusing to customers. Clients sometimes have to lay out their whole set of use cases and get them approved for specific types of licensing— it's on a case-to-case basis. I think that they're very actively working on improving this, but it can be quite difficult to work out the licensing.

Other than the pricing concerns, it's a really great platform. 

If you're considering using Appian, my advice is to work with people that have experience building solutions with it, because that's going to lead to fewer problems down the line.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Appian a rating of nine. It's a great business management platform.

We use this solution to provide us with real-time data on all connected systems — for a continuous process workflow.

Within our company, there are roughly 45 people using this solution — mostly developers. We have two admins that handle all maintenance-related issues.

Appian has enabled us tо аutоmаtе busіnеss рrосеssеs much faster sо thаt оur usеrs саn rерlісаtе thеm аnd use them on a daily basis to improve their productivity. 

The most important and the most notable feature is that it provides us with real-time data on all connected systems in terms of how they're integrated with each other and how they are performing in a workflow manner.

The graphical user interface could be easier to use. It should be simplified. When we're dealing with a large number of complex applications, the user interface is not the best. There could be a simpler design especially when it comes to providing a view on handling large users/user groups. 

I have been using Appian for two years.

This solution is very stable and robust. The updates definitely work. I've never had to roll back an update.

It works very well actually across systems. It can work across multiple complex systems, as well. There's no problem when it comes to scaling up and scaling out. Still, the interconnections, in terms of provisions of real-time data, can be a little clunky as the current graphical user interface has some issues.

The initial setup was fairly simple and straightforward. It's pretty much plug-and-play.

Deployment time depends on the environment and the use case. It can take anywhere from two weeks to six weeks.

When it comes to connecting multiple systems, Appian fares much better compared to Pega.

First, you have to understand the business logic behind all of your systems before you start developing and interconnecting the systems, and the process flows across the systems. That's the best advice I have.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight.

In terms of the traffic, the user interface should be improved so that it provides real-time data for complex connections between systems. If that is improved, I would give this solution a higher rating. Otherwise, it's a very stable and very robust product.

The initial setup was seamless. We didn't run into any hardships at all.

The solution's stability is pretty good.

While we haven't tried to scale yet, we see that there might be potential to do so in the future.

We've had some issues in regards to functionality.

We are currently facing some challenges regarding the potential of using more advanced instruction in order to compare items. We'd like to have more modules so that we can understand the solution a bit better.

I would like to see more complete university tools. For example, with UiPath, I have had a good experience related to a free course in order to provide some users some different levels of knowledge. This extra training helps users not only use the solution but to develop further within the tool.

We're currently working with the solution in order to build a report on its usability. The solution is quite new to us.

The stability was satisfactory. We did have some issues regarding the connectivity. For example, in the conference room, there is no connection anywhere. We sometimes lose connection even when we don't have problems with our network. It's very strange. We don't know why this happens.

We believe the scalability will be good. It has a good perspective in order to escalate the durations, however, unfortunately, we haven't been able to test the market to measure the potential for expansion.

We are in the testing phase, however, if we do decide to deploy the product, our plan is to scale from 20 to 300 users in the near future.

This is our first test regarding RPA. We don't have any other previous experience with other solutions.

We found the initial setup to be quite straightforward and very easy. It was not complex in any way. A company shouldn't have issues implementing it.

To completely deploy everything took about a week. It wasn't too long of a process.

We used consultants and our own IT department to handle the implementation.

The licensing will be on a monthly basis. We are estimating that cost to be around $2000 to maybe $3,000 per month. We don't foresee any costs above that.

We're just a customer and an end-user. We don't have a relationship with the company.

Currently, we are in the middle of a test pilot. We have about 20 users experimenting with the solution as we speak.

I would recommend the solution to others. However, I would advise them to measure the requirements associated with the complexity of implementation related to how much coding they need, how complex their interactions will be. These variables may be factors when choosing which tool to use.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for office automation purposes.

The Sites features are very nice. We use it extensively.

We have Tempo reports and we enjoy that it has Tempo functionality. 

The interface is very good. Our clients really seem to like that.

The product has a very good mobile app.

Overall, the features of the product are very helpful.

It's a solution that doesn't really need a lot of coding, if at all. It's very drag-and-drop. That's what makes it so easy to use.

The product offers a lot of good integration capabilities.

We have clients that want to use Office 365, Microsoft Analytics, and Power Apps. Appian just isn't the same as using something specifically designed to cater to the Microsoft Suite.

The solution used to be a bit more difficult to use, but we've added Tempo and now everything is much easier. We can do things very quickly.

I've been using the solution for about 15 years or so. It's been well over a decade.

As a person that's more in development, I've never tested the stability or noted any weakness in its reliability.

I'm more on the development side of things and therefore haven't really been exposed to the scalability aspect of the solution. I don't know if it's possible or not.

Currently, we don't have much of a need for technical support. I personally have never been in touch with them. I can't speak to their knowledgeability or responsiveness.

I don't deal with the financial aspect of the solution. I'm not sure how much it costs or if it is expensive or affordable.

I want to migrate to Microsoft PowerApps. I'm actually looking for the feasibility of migrating the existing Appian objects into PowerApps.

We are Appian integration partners.

We have multiple clients using Appian, although some want to move over to Microsoft.

I would recommend the solution. It's quite easy to use, and the drag-and-drop functionality is great. For example, we have database records, and therefore we can easily pull the data from the database and connect and run the process. It's very easy when it's compared to previous versions. One thing to note, however, is that we do have a lot of memory. The memory has to be maintained and managed properly, otherwise, the system performance will come down.

I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. There really is nothing like it on the market right now.

I work for the largest distributor of Toyota Lexus in the Middle East. My area is related to car motors. I'm an IT senior general manager and we are customers of Appian. 

The workflow engines are a valuable feature. We use them to bridge the gaps of processes within our core systems that are either too difficult or too costly to develop within the core system. We bridge those gaps using Appian. 

We'd like to see the employee experience improved, something we can integrate with SharePoint. Right now we're looking at the Power BI which belongs to Microsoft. It has a lot of good features for low-code no-code development kinds of things. I'd like to see the ability of the software itself to integrate with the core systems. It's a gap that Appian hasn't fulfilled. 

I'd like to see integration with Microsoft products as an additional feature. Microsoft Team, or something like that. It's not there or if it is, it requires some work to enable easy integration with SharePoint. 

I've been using this solution for eight years. 

The scalability and stability of this solution are good. 

I'd say that the technical support is good. 

We visited the workflows that are provided within SharePoint but they did not fulfill the kind of things that we were looking for, or the problems that we were trying to solve at that point of time. We were planning to work on specific domains, specific areas, but you cannot make it work for complex things. 

The setup is not completely straightforward but not too complex either. The deployment itself wasn't too difficult, but this is something where features evolve and the things within it over time start moving. Adapting to any new feature while continuing to work is not simple. It makes things more complex. There are around 5,000 people using the product and we have five people dealing with maintenance. 

The price should be lower. It's not too expensive but I believe the price could be better. 

The product needs to be supported by top management for it to work. This is one of the things that we faced at the very beginning. Second, from a technical point of view, you need to have a dedicated team taking care of this from a product management point of view, not necessarily from a technical point of view because that can be outsourced. I recommend not doing the development in-house, rather to outsource it with one or two partners and the corporate team. I recommend going for the full cloud-based solution architecture rather than having part of it inside and part of it outside. If there is no issue with data sharing then I would recommend going for a fully cloud-based solution. It gives an advantage and reduces a lot of management headaches. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10.