We performed a comparison between IBM Sterling File Gateway and SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Managed File Transfer (MFT) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I have found almost all the features valuable."
"The most valuable aspect is that it has good functionality."
"It offers easy utilization of resources for smooth transfers."
"This product has been a leader in the field of secure file exchange."
"Very high functionality with the ability to plug in your own code."
"It's highly configurable, there is no need for standalone scripting."
"We can use it to script and monitor processes."
"We can code in Java, which is really good feature. There is very vast command available, which can be used in mapping."
"With SEEBURGER BIS, you can string as many different activities together in your workflows as you want. You can put them in any order, like a piece of code. One leads into the next, which leads into the next. It is just very flexible from that vantage point. This makes it so easy to use and reduces the number of moving parts that you need to have. It is just a lot less frustrating not having to conform to how some other vendor software works."
"It's a very robust solution and it's very configurable. Before this product we would use an ESB-type of solution which required us to write code and go through a process. We can configure the SEEBURGER solution much more easily, instead of writing code... It can handle large files very well."
"SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS) also allowed us to connect EDI vendors at will."
"Another aspect that we employed in the last year-and-a-half has been their CMA platform component, which hooks to the SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS) front end. We've been able to set up an automatic testing process for our partners."
"It has a lot of basic EDI already established for all the main users. Also, it lets me share setups that I had already set up for my first plant. I was able to use them for my second one which was very helpful. I didn't have to start from scratch for my second facility."
"SEEBURGER BIS can reconcile documentation, like our accounts payable and statements within the system. If you are manually doing it, then it is really time consuming with a lot of errors. Whereas, SEEBURGER BIS allows for a lot of basic level programming within the documentation, filtering, and sorting out VLOOKUP. It lets us get two database tables from two different systems, then merge them based on the logic that we provide. So, it is a very helpful product."
"I would like to see auto-deployment without service disruptions."
"The admin console needs some work."
"Not a ten because it's a bit complex, not so simple. It's one product but there are many screens."
"The API capabilities could be expanded to make integration more versatile."
"IBM is advising not to use the IT translate anymore but this is going to be an extra cost to the customer to use the alternative."
"Too many features; UI is not good."
"We don't have much access to the logs or what's happening. So we have to log a ticket with SEEBURGER. We only get a message that something has failed... we have to open a ticket with SEEBURGER for them to tell us exactly what the issue is... I would like us to be able to be more self-sufficient."
"It's rather difficult to understand, from the application, what's broken and why it doesn't work. We typically need to get support from them directly, and it's usually in a consulting role, to fix issues."
"All the topics we've identified have been placed on the SEEBURGER roadmap already... Among the things we have requested are improvements in the user interface and improvements that would be implemented by completely new modules or improvements in their Cloud Services."
"The BIS Front End needs a little bit of refreshing, especially when it comes to setting up new trading partners and trading partner agreements or transactions. It can be a bit clumsy to copy and rename and then go in and modify."
"I don't think the scalability of the solution is that great because they have tied the solution to their named nodes and it does not allow scalability like some of the cloud products allow."
"I find the solution quite confusing to use, especially when looking at the tree structure."
"There might be some improvements they could make to the portal, but they're not anything that stops me from working."
"We occasionally get ZIP files. Sometimes the ZIP file has one file inside of it, and sometimes the ZIP file might have 30 files inside of it. We have been working with SEEBURGER to enhance their PKUNZIP process to be able to unzip multiple files in a single workflow instead of just one file. This is still something that is in process."
More SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Sterling File Gateway is ranked 3rd in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 6 reviews while SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite is ranked 14th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 37 reviews. IBM Sterling File Gateway is rated 7.4, while SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM Sterling File Gateway writes "Easy to use with good validation and monitoring of the file transfer". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite writes "Gives us the flexibility to hook up to systems using any protocol out there". IBM Sterling File Gateway is most compared with MOVEit, Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct, Aspera Managed File Transfer, BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer and Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT, whereas SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite is most compared with SAP Cloud Platform, IBM Sterling B2B Integration Services, Mule ESB, IBM B2B Integrator and Microsoft Azure API Management. See our IBM Sterling File Gateway vs. SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite report.
See our list of best Managed File Transfer (MFT) vendors.
We monitor all Managed File Transfer (MFT) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
