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

Appian vs Tungsten Insight comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 25, 2026

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

Appian
Ranking in Process Mining
6th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
65
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Management (BPM) (8th), Process Automation (9th), Rapid Application Development Software (13th), Low-Code Development Platforms (7th), Business Orchestration and Automation Technologies (10th)
Tungsten Insight
Ranking in Process Mining
15th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
BI (Business Intelligence) Tools (41st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Process Mining category, the mindshare of Appian is 6.6%, up from 5.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tungsten Insight is 2.5%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Process Mining Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Appian6.6%
Tungsten Insight2.5%
Other90.9%
Process Mining
 

Featured Reviews

Shad Bhowmik - PeerSpot reviewer
Finance Specialist at a government with 5,001-10,000 employees
Automated remittance workflows have boosted speed and accuracy but still need geo-tagging improvements
Remittance is a crucial part of my integral operation, so any disruption would majorly impact our clients. After switching to Appian, we never faced any disruption as it is reliable and we can generate data at any point in time, quite faster than other tools in my personal opinion. Regulators can ask for data from us at any time, and with Appian, we download data from our Appian tools to share it with them whenever they ask. I would share a real-life example: a customer's transaction processed more than a year ago. Suddenly the customer came back asking for all the details. In our previous tool, it was quite difficult to generate transaction details from over a year ago; however, while using Appian, we can pull up data using different key search fields, such as a customer's cell phone number, remittance tracking number, or MT103 reference number. We shared it with the customer instantly, and the customer was surprised we could provide all the details in such a short time. It added reputational value for our organization, thanks to Appian.You have pointed out two major things: time-saving and reduction of error, which are key points while processing remittance. Previously, while using another tool, it was quite time-consuming to process remittance, but after switching to Appian, it can extract data from MT103, eliminating the need for manual data entry. The process has become fully automated. Previously we could process only five to ten transactions within an hour, but now, after switching to Appian, we can process about 100 transactions in an hour, making it 10 times faster. In terms of error detection, since Appian extracts data from MT103, the extraction rate is quite good, and the error rate is negligible, lower than 0.001%. We can share accurate, error-free data with the regulator, which is essential for us. Appian benefits us significantly. After receiving an MT103, we check what the remitter is, the amount, if it is under threshold for processing, and if it is from a high-priority remitter or client. Since Appian extracts data from MT103 messages and identifies top-level clients from the database, it can notify us to process their transactions with priority. Due to automated data extraction, there are fewer instances of error. In our previous tool, we reported regulatory data to the central bank manually and often received complaints about invalid purpose codes due to manual data entry. Appian handles this automatically, and after switching, our error rate has dropped significantly, resulting in positive feedback from the Central Bank of Bangladesh regarding our reduced error rates. This has greatly enhanced our organization's reputation. Appian is fully on-premises, and we have our own system.
reviewer2005506 - PeerSpot reviewer
Major Account Manager at a computer software company with 51-200 employees
Great reporting and customizations with good reliability
A lot of the improvement is not so much the product as it is how it's deployed; it's about mapping against what you need to improve your processes, whether it's the Kofax kind of shows in the IDP. You've got process orchestration, extraction and robotic process automation, process orchestration, and then mobile. Tracking what you need out of those, either all five together or one of those separated out, is usually what's more critical. They do add capabilities to the tool. However, from our perspective as a consulting organization, the real key is whether you are getting the data you need to improve your process or if your reporting is not providing you with the desired information you need to improve your processes. If there's any negative, it's just the different names, the branding names that the product's gone through. It's confusing.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"When you consider the capability, what it can do, consider the price, consider the different advantages that it has, I think it's a superior product."
"It is easy for me to define the process and create configurable workflows."
"When it comes to speed of development, system integrations, BMPS workflows, and digitization of manual processes, Appian is possibly the best choice there is."
"Good workflow engines that bridge the gaps of processes."
"SAIL (Self-Assembling Interface Layer), a scripting language provided by Appian. It is the equivalent of JS and CSS. It allows creation of complex UIs which are also responsive. With SAIL, we have a single language for both the UI logic and its appearance. UI components can be built as reusable components and used in multiple UI interfaces."
"There is no need to worry about vulnerabilities in the system, because Appian built a secure system​."
"Appian's most valuable features are the quick time it takes to develop for the market. It's easy and faster than other BPM solutions."
"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."
"Based on my experience, it's been a very, very good product, a very powerful insight analytics or business KPI-type tool that provides a very good data-based review of intelligent document processing and allows clients to develop their own reliable, customized reports."
"It provides the ability to design applications directly."
"You can easily customize reporting to pull the fields that interest you."
"The designer and workspace tools in Kofax Insight are good, providing the ability to design applications directly and read various types of PDF images, handwritten files and cheques, transferring the data from these images into the database and making it accessible on mobile and computer devices."
"The solution is easy to manage, very easy to scan and archive documents, and after digitizing it is very easy to reach archived documents."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
 

Cons

"Appian is a great tool for internal use cases where the users are company employees, but it has room to improve for use cases where the users are public facing, where anonymous users could come to a site and run a business workflow or interact with some data."
"You can't really test the software properly without actually buying the license first."
"I would like to see more enhancement in the user interface to allow more freedom in designing the sites and pages."
"If that had more DevOps capabilities, it would be an excellent product."
"Architecture of product and scalabiility issues."
"It needs better integration with our existing application ecosystem."
"What could be improved is more on the front end perspective, like the user interface and the mobile application aspect."
"The solution needs to have more features."
"The reporting and internal integration systems could be improved by making them more user-friendly."
"The solution is not cheap. It is a bit pricey, and therefore more suited towards larger companies."
"The initial setup is complex and would be difficult to carry out without any training."
"If there's any negative, it's just the different names, the branding names that the product's gone through. It's confusing."
"It would be ideal if there were some standard forms that could be customized."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"When it comes to pricing, it's definitely not affordable. However, it really depends on the requirements that you're seeking from the solution."
"More flexibility in the licensing model is still needed because initially there were customers who are looking at only one or two use cases of business areas, but now the business areas are changing and there is a larger scope. One license model may not fit everyone. They need to be a little more flexible on the licensing model."
"If you're doing an enterprise-wide digital transformation, Appian is worthwhile, but not for just one or two use cases because the license costs are higher."
"The license is not very cheap. It's on the expensive side."
"You can't really test the software properly without actually buying the license first."
"BPM done right is a huge value proposition for almost any company, and with Appian's low code rapid development model, the ROI can be huge, while the break-even point should be accelerated tremendously."
"I think that if somebody is really serious at looking at business value, then by all means, the product is well worth the value. You get representative business value for the price that you pay for the product, and for the implementation of the product."
"I'm sure it is cost-effective, but right now, we're just toying around with it. So, I don't have any hard numbers."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Process Mining solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
Construction Company
18%
Performing Arts
8%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise46
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Which do you prefer - Appian or Camunda Platform?
Appian is fast when building simple to medium solutions. This solution offers simple drag-and-drop functionality with easy plug-and-play options. The initial setup was seamless and very easy to imp...
Is Appian a suitable solution for beginners who have no additional preparation?
Appian is actually pretty big on educating its users, including with courses that reward you with certifications. There is a whole section on their company’s website where you can check out the edu...
Is it easy to set up Appian or did you have to resort to professional help?
We had some issues when we were setting up Appian. It was quite surprising, since this is a low-code tool which, in its essence, means it is meant for business users and inexperienced beginners. So...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Appian BPM, Appian AnyWhere, Appian Enterprise BPMS
Kofax Insight
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Hansard Global plc, Punch Taverns, Pirelli, Crawford & Company, EDP Renewables, Queensland Government Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (, Bank of Tennessee
Infosys,HMI, krungsri, Cegeka
Find out what your peers are saying about Appian vs. Tungsten Insight and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.