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

Appian vs UiPath Studio comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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 Low-Code Development Platforms
8th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
65
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Management (BPM) (7th), Process Automation (9th), Rapid Application Development Software (13th), Process Mining (6th), Business Orchestration and Automation Technologies (14th)
UiPath Studio
Ranking in Low-Code Development Platforms
17th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.3
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Robotic Process Automation (RPA) (6th)
 

Featured Reviews

SB
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.
VijayBhallamudi - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Business Analyst at Flix
Citizen developers have automated finance processes and created reusable modules across entities
There are some weaknesses, though nothing on the top of my mind at the moment. From a process and OCR point of view, for example, we are currently doing a use case about e-invoicing. We feel the accuracy that the OCR provides from UiPath Studio was not as high as we had initially anticipated. We had to not go with that module that UiPath Studio offers. UiPath Studio has an a la carte mode where you can buy specific functionalities without having to buy the whole package. We decided to test out a few other tools in the market and bought a customized tool specifically for OCR purposes because UiPath Studio's accuracy was not as great. It comes more on a use case-to-use case basis. Certain use cases that we try show that certain functionalities could be improved, and there is definitely a scope for improvement. That being said, the functionalities that we bought UiPath Studio initially for work pretty well. We wanted a centralized automation hub, an Orchestrator, and maximum license utilization for the bots we were purchasing. They are basic, but at the same time, they are easy to use. The ease of use is one of the main reasons why we still favor UiPath Studio. The AI and OCR parts are something we are looking to explore more in the coming year, and that will probably give us more insights into the functionalities and their value. At the moment, we use Oracle as our ERP. We have not had much success integrating with Oracle so far. UiPath Studio offers a lot of customized integrations for SAP, but not much for Oracle Cloud. We had to leverage our internal ERP in-house team to build integrations. We used Oracle Cloud integrations rather than UiPath Studio integrations with respect to ERP. Every conference or event that UiPath Studio organizes, when we have a chance to speak with someone from UiPath Studio, we bring up Oracle Cloud integrations. I believe that in Europe and the US, Oracle Cloud is growing in usage, so we would appreciate more effort focused there. However, with Salesforce, we used a couple of cases with customer service in our company, and we integrated with it very smoothly without any blockers. At the moment, we have not explored AI and ML capabilities of UiPath Studio as much as we should have. We conducted a series of process discovery workshops in our company, and the use cases we received did not require AI or ML functionalities because they were core finance operations, and we did well with just the regular functionalities of UiPath Studio. We are still looking forward to finding a case where we could leverage AI and ML capabilities. We do not want to use AI functionalities just because we want to use them. It is more of a situation where we ask if it is needed, and we are still looking forward to finding a case that demands the need for AI functionalities or a nice-to-have feature. At the moment, we still have not used or explored those things of UiPath Studio.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable features of Appian are workflow management and the ease with which you can build the UI."
"Other than the pricing concerns, it's a really great platform."
"The initial setup was seamless. We didn't run into any hardships at all."
"Being able to model requirements in BPMN 2.0, get agreement from business and IT, and then have Appian BPMN 2.0 compliant engine execute the diagram has created executable requirements and speeds up the SDLC process greatly."
"All in all, Appian gives the best coverage of all the features needed for an automation platform."
"The technical support for Appian rates as 10 out of 10 because they have a great support team."
"If anyone has to work on a BPM, then it's the best tool, and it's currently the market leader in terms of BPM in our country."
"The interface is a good feature because it's simple to use and you can quickly develop the users' interface."
"The fact that with UiPath Studio we can build reusable modules that we can use across automations has been specifically very useful to us as a company and team driving this project."
"I have seen a return on investment because we have saved around one million dollars on a yearly basis with our 1,000 bots."
"There are a lot of great things in UiPath Studio; whatever is required for the development is there, and I do not think I face any difficulty during the development of any use case from UiPath Studio's side."
"UiPath Studio is good for automating business processes and repetitive tasks within my company."
"Compared to other tools, UiPath Studio licensing cost is low."
"Right now we have it deployed, and it is dealing with about 50% of our document volume."
 

Cons

"The product’s pricing could be improved from the developers' perspective."
"Appian could improve their customer-facing initiatives."
"The UI of Appian is more internal."
"The reporting is not as good as in similar products. They could also improve the dashboards."
"The ability of the interface to load automatic data is not great."
"It is also not easy to learn. Training tutorials could be improved."
"Newer features, especially in terms of scalability, have to become more scalable than what it is today, and it needs better integration with our existing application ecosystem."
"I would like to see more enhancement in the user interface to allow more freedom in designing the sites and pages."
"We feel the accuracy that the OCR provides from UiPath Studio was not as high as we had initially anticipated."
"Some of the recent upgraded versions, the package sometimes create problems, so that has to be tested first and then it should be available in UiPath Studio, because everybody wants to use the latest package, but sometimes when we are using the latest package, it creates problems."
"We are not seeing improved ROI because the bigger chunks of use cases we have already addressed. When we take it down to the medium size, the cost of development and deployment is something which is prohibitive and it doesn't make a good financial business case."
"In terms of improvement for UiPath Studio, while we are currently using the AI capability, I find that Copilot is not that reliable."
"On the improving side, concerning costing, I am not sure because the cost of the new product is very high."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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."
"It's an enterprise tool and can be used by enterprise only. So it's a very expensive tool."
"You can't really test the software properly without actually buying the license first."
"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."
"The cost is calculated on a per-user basis. It might be expensive for small and mid-sized enterprises."
"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."
"It is expensive, but powerful. I would recommend comparing against cheaper licensing products and open source."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Low-Code Development Platforms solutions are best for your needs.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
6%
No data available
 

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...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for UiPath Studio?
I am satisfied with the current price for the product and overall licensing costs. Whatever price is given is provided by the client. We can definitely suggest the amount, and if the client is read...
What needs improvement with UiPath Studio?
Before Agentic or document understanding, it was definitely complicated, and you cannot be 100 percent sure if you can automate a process or not. For example, handling an invoice and extracting a s...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Appian BPM, Appian AnyWhere, Appian Enterprise BPMS
No data available
 

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
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Appian vs. UiPath Studio and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.