Axon Ivy vs. Okta Workflows (Azuqua)

Azuqua is well suited to connect data based systems or to add an extra level of automation to Smartsheet without requiring the control center. It is also well suited for people who don't have in depth understandings of programming. The UI is mostly visual with click and drag systems instead of requiring manually entered variables.

Incentivized

• The concept of reduced code to simplify use by less technical teams lowers the barriers to integration and allows teams to collaborate with ideas and concepts much easier
• The ability to review simply any error cases simplifies the old approaches of debugging and reviewing large and complex logs
• While not strictly part of the platform the support team's efforts to assist, to help clarify issues and then (where necessary) to resolve bugs was a large benefit and a key driver to extend the platform's footprint.

Incentivized

• The lack of connection/card documentation. Every card does have a section with details, but they are sometimes lacking.
• The help center and community also need some structuring work. Every single connection/app should have a section with detailed documentation regarding its triggers and actions.
• The FLO history section needs to be more refined. It sometimes does not load and choosing the date doesn't actually show execution results from that particular day.

Incentivized

I had to use the Automate tool for funneling image assets in bulk (tens of thousands) from FTPs into various destinations on an eCommerce platform. The user interface was quite harsh in comparison to Azuqua. Far more text/code line driven.

Incentivized

• It is very good to maintain customers updated.
• It is good so we can not delay on our responses, and customers keep confidence in us.
• We are able to work multiple persons on a single case without having dificulties on finishing the tasks.

Incentivized