Compare
Review up to 6 products side by side.
|
Appian
Appian
|
Microsoft Power Apps
Microsoft
|
OutSystems
OutSystems
|
Mendix
Mendix
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Head-to-head in this comparison | ||||
| Advantages |
Free plan available
Free trial available
Can run on-premise
Deloitte alliance partner
Vendor is publicly listed — audited financial disclosure
|
Only one here with Two-factor authentication, Turkish interface
Free trial available
Turkish interface
Public pricing
Vendor is publicly listed — audited financial disclosure
|
Free plan available
Can run on-premise
|
Free plan available
Can run on-premise
|
| Drawbacks |
Lacks Integrations marketplace, Offline mode — offered by others here
No Turkish interface
Pricing only on request
|
No free plan
Cloud only
|
Lacks Multi-language, Workflow automation, Offline mode — offered by others here
No free trial
No Turkish interface
Pricing only on request
Narrowest feature scope (11)
|
Lacks HIPAA, Workflow automation — offered by others here
No free trial
No Turkish interface
Pricing only on request
Least established — vendor founded 2005
|
| Editorial assessment | ||||
| Strengths |
Strong process automation and case management capabilities
Combines low-code, workflow, RPA and data fabric
Suited to regulated industries with strict governance
|
Tight integration with Microsoft 365, Teams and Dataverse
Large library of connectors to business systems
Lets business users build apps with little code
|
Builds complex, scalable enterprise applications quickly
Strong full-stack visual development and deployment tools
Good support for mobile and web from one platform
|
Supports both citizen and professional developers
Strong collaboration and agile project tooling
Flexible cloud and on-premise deployment
|
| Considerations |
Premium pricing aimed at large enterprises
Specialized skills needed for complex solutions
UI customization is somewhat limited
|
Licensing for premium connectors is confusing
Performance and UI flexibility can be limited
Best value only inside the Microsoft ecosystem
|
High licensing cost for smaller organizations
Steep learning curve for advanced use
Risk of platform lock-in
|
Pricing can be high for large deployments
Advanced customization requires Java knowledge
Platform lock-in for built applications
|
| Product & company facts | ||||
| Deloitte alliance | ✓ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
| Rating | — | — | — | — |
| Starting price | Contact for quote | $20 / user/month | Contact for quote | Free plan available |
| Pricing model | Quote-based | Subscription | Quote-based | Freemium |
| Free plan | ✓ | ✕ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Free trial | ✓ | ✓ | ✕ | ✕ |
| Open source | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
| Deployment | Cloud (SaaS), On-premise, Hybrid | Cloud (SaaS) | Cloud (SaaS), On-premise | Cloud (SaaS), On-premise |
| Platforms | Web, iOS, Android | Web, Windows, iOS, Android | Web, iOS, Android | Web, iOS, Android |
| Turkish interface | ✕ | ✓ | ✕ | ✕ |
| Target size | Enterprise | Mid-market, Enterprise | Mid-market, Enterprise | Mid-market, Enterprise |
| Industries served | Government & public sector, Banking & capital markets, Insurance, Life sciences, Cross-industry | — | — | — |
| Active users | — | — | — | — |
| Customers | — | — | — | — |
| Vendor employees | 2,000 | 228,000 | 1,700 | 1,700 |
| Headquarters | McLean, US | Redmond, US | Boston, US | Boston, US |
| Founded | 1999 | 1975 | 2001 | 2005 |
| Categories | Low-Code / No-Code, Automation & Integration (iPaaS) | Low-Code / No-Code | Low-Code / No-Code | Low-Code / No-Code |
| Features | ||||
| AI features | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Workflow automation | ✓ | ✓ | — | — |
| GDPR compliance | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| HIPAA | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — |
| ISO 27001 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| SOC 2 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| API access | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Integrations marketplace | — | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Mobile app | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Multi-language | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ |
| Offline mode | — | ✓ | — | ✓ |
| Turkish interface | — | ✓ | — | — |
| Audit log | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Role-based access | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Single sign-on (SSO) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Two-factor authentication | — | ✓ | — | — |
Feature marks are based on our curated data; “—” means not verified, not necessarily missing. Head-to-head points are derived from this data relative to the selected products; editorial points are curated summaries.