FlowForma vs Nintex: Which is the better for process automation in M365

FlowForma and Nintex are both process automation platforms used by organizations running Microsoft 365, but they take different approaches to how they integrate with the Microsoft stack and how they support customers day to day.

FlowForma is architecturally built on SharePoint and runs inside your own Microsoft 365 tenant, with an in-house customer support team working directly with customer teams.

Nintex is an established third-party workflow platform that connects to Microsoft 365 via connectors, with support delivered largely through its global partner network. For Microsoft-committed teams evaluating a workflow platform, the architectural fit and the support model are typically the two most important differences.

Below, a full comparison across the architectural fit, support model, build approach for business users, pricing, and what a migration path looks like for teams already running Nintex.

Native to Microsoft 365, not just integrated with it

Most workflow automation platforms describe themselves as "Microsoft 365-integrated," but the term covers two very different architectural realities.

FlowForma is architecturally built on SharePoint. The platform installs into your existing Microsoft 365 tenant and uses SharePoint lists as its data layer, so workflow data lives where all your other SharePoint data lives. Documents generated by a workflow are stored in SharePoint libraries.

Permissions come from SharePoint groups. Audit trails sit alongside the process records themselves. Users interact with FlowForma through SharePoint, Microsoft Teams, or Outlook, all of which they already use every day. There's no separate portal, no separate database, and no separate tenant to secure.

Nintex takes a different approach. It's a third-party workflow platform that runs as its own service, either on-premises historically or as Nintex Automation Cloud today, and communicates with SharePoint and Microsoft 365 through connectors.

Data lives in the Nintex platform storage, workflow logic runs on Nintex infrastructure, and users interact with Nintex through its own interface. Integration with Microsoft 365 is functional, but it's architecturally different from being inside Microsoft 365.

For teams committed to Microsoft 365, this difference has practical consequences.

1. Automatic single sign-on and permissions

Users are already signed into Microsoft 365, and FlowForma inherits that authentication directly. If a user has access to a SharePoint site, they have access to the FlowForma workflow running on it. Connector-based platforms typically require additional SSO configuration and maintain their own permissions structure alongside SharePoint's.

2. No new tenant to secure

Your Microsoft 365 admins already know how to secure and govern SharePoint. FlowForma inherits that governance framework directly. A third-party platform adds a separate vendor system that needs to be secured, backed up, and managed alongside SharePoint.

3. A single source of truth in SharePoint

No synchronization layer between the workflow platform and SharePoint means no risk of data drift, no sync failures under load, and no ambiguity about where the record of truth actually lives.

For teams whose IT strategy is Microsoft-first, this architectural closeness is often the single most decisive factor in a workflow platform choice.

Support as an extension of your team

How a vendor supports its customers day to day is often invisible in early evaluation and decisive after go-live. FlowForma and Nintex operate two very different support models.

1. FlowForma support comes direct from our team

Customer support, onboarding, and ongoing service all come from FlowForma's own in-house team, not through a partner intermediary. When you need help with a workflow build, a support question, or a change request, you're speaking to people who work for FlowForma and know the product end to end.

FlowForma's team operates as an extension of your team, with a direct relationship and no third-party layer between you and the vendor.

2. Nintex operates through a partner network

Nintex's model is built around its Nintex Partner Program, and much of the delivery, implementation, and ongoing support is handled by partner organizations rather than by Nintex directly. Nintex maintains a Customer Central self-service portal and a partner directory to help customers find the right partner for their needs. The partner network gives Nintex reach and regional coverage, and works well for large organizations that already have preferred partner relationships.

For Microsoft-committed customers, the practical difference tends to show up in three places.

3. Predictable budgeting

Direct-vendor support typically comes as part of the platform subscription, so the cost is predictable across a full year. Partner-delivered support is usually billed on a project or hourly basis, which makes budgeting for unexpected complex support cases harder to model in advance.

4. Faster response times

In-house support teams have direct visibility into the product roadmap and internal knowledge, so unusual issues often get resolved faster because the person you're talking to has the answer or knows exactly who does. Partner support typically has to route more complex questions back to the vendor.

5. Continuity of relationship

A direct-vendor support relationship means the same team is available across the lifetime of your deployment. Partner relationships can change if partners are acquired, exit the program, or shift focus, which can create continuity gaps for customers relying on partner-delivered support.

FlowForma vs Nintex at a glance

Here's how the two platforms compare on the criteria most Microsoft-committed teams weigh during evaluation.

For a wider view of the market beyond this head-to-head, see our full guide to Nintex alternatives.

How business users build workflows in FlowForma vs Nintex

The build model is where the two platforms diverge most sharply once you get past the architectural question.

Nintex uses a flow-based workflow designer. Simple processes can be built by power users, but anything with real complexity generally ends up on the IT team's desk. That includes conditional routing across multiple approvers, integration with external systems, and dynamic form logic. Advanced builds require expertise most business users don't have.

FlowForma is designed differently. The business users who own the process also build and maintain the workflow, and IT provides the governance layer around them, so permissions, integrations, security, and audit all stay under IT control.

The difference shows up most clearly in three areas.

1. Multi-step approvals

In FlowForma, adding a new approver, changing an escalation rule, or routing conditionally by amount or department is a drag-and-drop change. In Nintex, the same change often means opening a ticket with IT.

2. Conditional routing

FlowForma's rules engine lets business users define if-this-then-that logic without writing code. Nintex can handle the same requirement, but the interface leans more technical and typically needs someone comfortable with workflow design principles.

3. Document generation

FlowForma generates contracts, purchase orders, and letters directly from workflow data, all inside the same platform. Nintex customers usually rely on a third-party integration or a separate module, which adds cost and complexity.

FlowForma also has a stronger AI layer. Copilot builds working processes from a plain-language description, and AI Agents read uploaded documents, extract data, and validate it against your rules. Nintex's native AI functionality is more limited by comparison. 

Pricing and licensing model

Nintex's licensing model has historically been per-instance or execution-based, so costs scale with how much you use the platform. Every workflow run, every form submission, and every automated action contributes to the bill. For customers running high-volume processes across departments, that model can become hard to predict and awkward to budget for.

With FlowForma you pay for process tiers. This model is easy to follow and estimate as you grow your automation plans. Essentials is for automating up to 3 end-to-end business processes, Professional
for automating up to 30 end-to-end business processes and Enterprise is customized based on your requiements. 

Which platform works out cheaper depends on how heavily you use it. High-usage teams typically find process based pricing more predictable and lower in aggregate over a full year. For current confirmed figures, FlowForma's pricing is published here and you can learn more about Nintex's pricing here. 

If you're already running Nintex

For teams currently running Nintex who want to move to a native Microsoft 365 platform, FlowForma offers a defined migration path. It's a rebuild rather than an automatic conversion, but the rebuild is accelerated by FlowForma Copilot's ability to read existing process documentation and generate the equivalent no-code workflow directly.

A typical migration involves auditing existing workflows, prioritizing by business criticality, rebuilding in FlowForma, and running parallel testing before cutover. Most straightforward workflows can be rebuilt in hours rather than days. FlowForma's in-house team supports customers through the process from initial assessment to go-live, working directly alongside your team rather than routing through a partner.

For the full migration detail, see our Nintex migration guide.

What enterprise reviewers say about FlowForma vs Nintex

Third-party review platforms are a useful sense-check on any vendor comparison. FlowForma is rated 4.5 out of 5 on G2 across categories including no-code development, workflow management, and process automation. Reviewers commonly highlight ease of use, Microsoft 365 fit, and speed to implement.

Nintex also appears on G2, with a broader customer base built up over its longer time in market. Reviewer commentary tends to cover established feature depth for legacy workflow scenarios and, more recently, migration paths as customers evaluate their long-term platform choices.

For a genuine head-to-head comparison, I'd recommend spending time on both platforms' G2 profiles and filtering by recent reviews. The commentary from the last twelve months is where the current state of each product is most accurately reflected. For a wider shortlist of alternatives, see our Nintex competitors and alternatives guide.

See FlowForma inside your Microsoft 365 environment

If your team is committed to Microsoft 365 and evaluating workflow automation platforms, seeing FlowForma running inside a live SharePoint tenant is the clearest way to assess architectural fit. Book a demo and we'll walk through your specific setup with a member of our team, whether that's a first automation project or a review of tools you're already using.