Bonita Platform vs. OutSystems

Well suited for low code/no code applications centered around approval flows. It has built-in task management for users to see their pending actions, comments, statuses, etc. It has a very nice design for process flows. Less appropriate may be for generic type applications with complex screens and logic within those screens that need a lot of data to process.

Incentivized

OutSystems excels with building web interfaces fast and lends itself to custom integrations written in .Net. Most anything can be brought in given this ability to be extended. One of the drawbacks to the speed of development is that most quality control teams become quickly overwhelmed and may be unable to keep up.

Incentivized

• Efficient and fast prototyping: a process can be modeled and tried out quickly and with low investment.
• Full stack prototyping for development and implementation allows the process to be developed and implemented as an application from the prototype. It's not just drawings and wire frames that are tossed over the wall to developers.
• Data modeling is integral from the beginning of the prototype which is appropriate for the stakeholders in the beginning.

Incentivized

• Deployment management – OutSystems has a built in robust, multi-environment deployment system that helps ensures the clean and error free deployment of applications through the development, testing and production product lifecycle
• Rapid application development – Through the low code, graphical development environment you can develop applications far quicker than with more traditional development environments
• Cross platform mobile development – OutSystems handle the development and building of mobile application for both iOS and Android in a simple streamlined way that removes 90% of the problems normally associated with multi platform development

Incentivized

• There is only one business data model. Even if deploying new processes does not require stopping the platform, the BDM update requires it.
• During the platform evolution often new bugs were introduced so it was risky to deploy the platform in the low minor version. For example, there were memory leaks from 7.2.0 to 7.2.3.
• The administrator portal could be improved. It is hard to look at subprocess data, for example and it is sometimes better to investigate with SQL queries. I don't like new (7.3) task list either.

Incentivized

• The platform controls all the parts. While great for development and overall maintenance, it could lead to discussions with your DBA (who has to trust the platform). As a developer I love the platform, as a DBA I would like more control.
• By making software development model driven using flows, you are forced to rethink the way of programming. It makes it easier, but sometimes the way of working leads to code which could be optimized (standard problem in model based software development).
• Most of the code is generated, so the technical knowledge of the inner working of coding are not Essentials. This could lead to degration of this knowlegde. As part of this, most technologies will only be used when OutSystems supports it. They do a good job on implementing these things. But things like Node.js would be nice.

We just renewed our license

Incentivized

We are very happy with OutSystems and our developers deliver good work. OutSystems lets us build new software on a regulare (2 weekly) basis, which is highly flexible and adjustable. Even without very much experience, our developers manage to build usefull software, which is working a lot better than our previous (legacy) software.

Bonita Platform has allowed us to develop GUI relatively fast using its UI Designer while being able to seamlessly integrate our business logic in Java in a BPMN2 process diagram. It gives a nice productivity boost but still requires programming know-how to be able to deliver the final solution to your business problems.

Incentivized

OutSystems has a feature in which we can develop a functionality in a application and can use that functionality in another application without developing it again. That is main plus point for the development team so they can work with different functionalities rather focusing on the same thing again and again. if we want to make any change on the user side then we can make it live with just the deployment using the service center.

Incentivized

Engine itself is efficient enough for most cases I dealt with. It can also be extended by clustering. I have done performance tests with JMeter and only managed to induce the crash of... JMeter. If there are efficiency issues they usually concern bad design/implementation of created apps or bottlenecks in integrated systems. Although I have met two cases with efficiency loss.

1. Java 7 related PermGen saturation caused by big number of installed apps (there is no jar dependency reusal between apps option).

2. Big number of waiting event handlers in processes stresses the database.

Incentivized

It was sometimes difficult to get support on Bonita API.

Incentivized

The tech support is very reachable. Usually by [email] from but also by phone if needed. We had some difficulties at the start with understanding "what our machine was doing" under high performance load. After some good sessions understanding our needs they delivered good solutions for our problems we had in the beginning.

Excellent material full of hands on that improve the understanding of the platform.

The online training material is well designed and explanations are step by step, helping trainees to understand and follow each exercise and new concept.

Nothing in particular

Incentivized

In a large company, patiently and consistently work the behind the scenes politics with business and IT partners across the firm.
This is transformational - you will need a solid set of key business partners to lock arms together to move forward.

Incentivized

RHPAM is maybe a very good BPM process engine but is very limited to build a complete application.

We also try site soft W4 which needs more developments to build an application. We finally choose Bonita which is easier to get ready with.

Incentivized

Totally different products of cource. Sitecore is best suited for full fledged websites with extensive support for analytics. OutSystems for modular business processes with a UI. Hence, there is no overlap. But even for small websites, or even landingpages, I would recommend OutSystems, with a custom made analytics part or a plugin.

Incentivized

Respect of BPMN standard over the long term. Good enhancements by Bonitasoft for new use cases, for example the introduction of a real form editor even if it has been technically difficult to manage. Once done though, we have far greater possibility of human interaction.

Incentivized

• We've had serious problems with 'automated' processes in earlier versions of Bonita (via Talend), especially with connectors. In Bonita 7 we replaced these with REST calls, hoping for better performance.
• Overall, using Bonita has not had a positive impact on our development efficiency. Moving from Talend (using Bonita 5) to Bonita 7 has improved this somewhat. Still, it remains a pain to integrate Bonita in the development and delivery process.
• Migrating from Bonita 7.0 to 7.1 has proven to be a difficult undertaking, mainly on the database level. This has cost us a lot of time and better support would be welcomed.

Incentivized

• The ease of use of the OutSystems development process has been the biggest ROI for us. We have developed our Framework product and maintained/enhanced it with only 4 workers.
• OutSystems has enhanced their product very significantly over the last 4 years. They have gone from a simple to use tool to a very simple to use sophisticated tool that covers the standard mainframe-based computing apps and the apps used on handheld mobile devices all using the same basic set of development tools.

Incentivized