- Agentic orchestration: Build, deploy, orchestrate and govern first-party and external AI agents.
- Enterprise rules engine: Design, test and automate sophisticated business logic with visibility and auditability.
- Process automation: Connect people, systems, approvals and long-running workflows across the enterprise.
- Process intelligence: Observe operations and AI-driven outcomes to improve control and accountability.
- Visual low-code tools: Create workflows, forms, dashboards and integrations without writing every component from scratch.
Decisions
Enterprise-grade low-code platform for intelligent process automation and decisioning
Updated August 11, 2026
Decisions Overview
Decisions is a low-code platform for building and running complex business processes. Teams can combine rules, forms, integrations and dashboards in one workflow, then use process intelligence to see how the work is performing.
It is aimed at operations where decisions need clear controls, including finance, insurance, healthcare, manufacturing and government. Business rules can be updated without rebuilding the surrounding application.
Key Features
Pricing
| Plan | Price | Featured |
|---|---|---|
| Enterprise Decisions platform | Custom quote | Agentic orchestration, enterprise rules, process automation, governance and integrations |
Decisions uses tiered enterprise pricing based on use-case scope, deployment and required capabilities rather than charging per user. A customized quote is needed for an actual rollout.
Pricing source: Decisions enterprise pricing
Pros
| Compared with | Why this product may fit better |
|---|---|
| Appian | Appian brings a polished enterprise application platform, while Decisions gives .NET-oriented teams visual designers for forms, rules, workflows and dashboards. Decisions can suit organizations that want governed applications without adopting Appian's broader platform conventions. |
| Pega | Internal engineering teams may keep more control with Decisions' open data model and low-code rule design. Pega brings packaged frameworks and a specialist ecosystem, but those prescriptive industry patterns can be unnecessary for a tightly scoped internal application. |
| Camunda | Camunda gives developers a BPMN-centered stack to assemble, while Decisions includes business-facing forms, rules and operational screens in one platform. A mixed team can move faster when it values an integrated builder over selecting every component. |
| Microsoft Power Automate | Microsoft Power Automate is convenient for lightweight office automation, but Decisions goes deeper on complex decision logic, versioning and auditability. That matters when a process spans several systems or must explain why a rule produced an outcome. |
Cons
| Compared with | Where this product may fall short |
|---|---|
| Appian | Organizations seeking highly polished mobile patterns, packaged case management and a large implementation ecosystem may prefer Appian. Decisions offers flexibility, but that also leaves more solution design and interface refinement with the customer or delivery partner. |
| Camunda | Camunda gives developer-first teams direct BPMN control, an open-source core and a component architecture they can shape themselves. Decisions is less attractive when engineers see a proprietary low-code abstraction as a constraint rather than a convenience. |
| UiPath | UiPath is stronger at desktop and attended automation, which sits outside Decisions' process-and-rule focus. Companies automating legacy user interfaces will still need UiPath or another RPA tool instead of expecting Decisions to act as a bot platform. |
Reviews
- G2 reviews: G2 lists 4.6/5 from 41 reviews. Users praise visual workflow and rule building, the breadth of components and helpful support; the recurring cautions are a learning curve and slower behavior in large or intricate flows, so representative load and maintainability should be tested early.
- Gartner Peer Insights: Gartner feedback covers enterprise automation, flexibility and implementation experience. The qualitative evidence is more useful when read alongside the use case and deployment size, because a successful departmental workflow does not establish how a complex organization will govern every application.
