Nintex Forms
We help businesses power endless possibilities.
Est 2006|Valuation $460M|Raised $21M
We help businesses power endless possibilities.
Published May 16, 2026
| Starting Price | Typically quote-based and often bundled; public pricing varies across sources | Published per-user/per-plan pricing available from the vendor | Subscription tiers are published and vary; positioned as a SharePoint-focused alternative |
| Primary use case | Enterprises requiring forms tied to workflow automation, often in SharePoint-heavy environments with an existing Nintex footprint | Organizations standardized on Microsoft 365 seeking deep ecosystem integration and app-building capabilities beyond forms | SharePoint-centric teams needing a forms-focused tool with a simpler footprint |
| Key strengths | Integrated workflow and forms capabilities; drag-and-drop design and extensibility; migration tooling toward SPFx/Nintex Automation Cloud | Broad connector ecosystem; Dataverse; integration with Teams and Microsoft governance controls | Focused SharePoint forms experience; often positioned as a lower-cost alternative to broader automation suites |
| Key weaknesses | Migration risk tied to legacy SharePoint models; pricing opacity; mobile UX and governance/versioning challenges | Licensing complexity and potential capacity costs for Dataverse; can be complex to govern at scale | May not provide the breadth of automation capabilities (RPA, document generation, analytics) offered by larger suites |
Power Apps typically wins when organizations seek a strategic platform for apps and automation across Microsoft, require many connectors and deep Teams/Dataverse integration, and can manage licensing and governance complexity.
Plumsail Forms is often attractive when the requirement is primarily SharePoint list forms with rich UI rules, teams seek a smaller/simpler surface area than a full automation suite, or budget constraints make larger suites difficult to justify.
Crow Canyon NITRO Studio markets itself as a replacement option and claims competitive pricing and tenant-wide licensing; these vendor claims should be validated through apples-to-apples procurement comparisons.