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."Very high functionality with the ability to plug in your own code."
"The most valuable aspect is that it has good functionality."
"It offers easy utilization of resources for smooth transfers."
"It's highly configurable, there is no need for standalone scripting."
"I have found almost all the features valuable."
"This product has been a leader in the field of secure file exchange."
"The solution is flexible when it comes to adding integrations. It is much easier to use than the other tools we have to move the files. Across the board, we can move files in a short amount of time compared to our other existing tools."
"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."
"In our landscape, we have a lot of AS/400s or iSeries and SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS) has a file service listener that allows data to seamlessly be transferred between the SEEBURGER solution and the AS/400."
"SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS) also allowed us to connect EDI vendors at will."
"Among the most valuable features are the EDI translator and a lot of the components which enable creating compliance sets. Having something standard out-of-the-box and being able to use that has been a huge benefit for us."
"Among the most important [features] are the BIC 6 Converter and the communication protocols, which have the newer security features for certificates and encryption."
"The solution helps us automate processes, more on the insurance side. Where they used to have to babysit monthly files, because of size, they don't have to do that with SEEBURGER BIS. They just run the monthly process. Files get collected, translated, and sent to the proper systems, so the babysitting is gone."
"We can use it to script and monitor processes."
"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."
"Not a ten because it's a bit complex, not so simple. It's one product but there are many screens."
"Too many features; UI is not good."
"The API capabilities could be expanded to make integration more versatile."
"The admin console needs some work."
"I would like to see auto-deployment without service disruptions."
"The product is not integrated very well with different cloud providers. We did work with the vendor to build a solution for Amazon, but there is no solution for other cloud providers like Google or Azure. The vendor needs to create adapters so that if we have a requirement to transfer data from our data center to another cloud, outside of Amazon, we would be delighted with that."
"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."
"We wanted to use API. We were told that in 6.52 we could use API management. Later on, we found that API management wasn't that completely integrated into the 6.52 solution, and if you wanted to have the whole API suite you might have to go to 6.7, the latest one."
"They have their own private cloud. That's the reason we did not go ahead with managing everything by ourselves or moving into the cloud. They said that they're going to be doing it within the next two years, having access to Azure and AWS. That would be something we would like to see."
"Java is very old technology and they should move away from it, to anything that's better."
"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."
"There are some aspects at the front, the actual queries that you use, that could be improved. They're all very minor to be honest."
"They made improvements to the email error alerts that go out, for the EDI technical. Those typically go straight out to the partners. Those messages are significantly clearer and easy to read. The same messages in the front end are not nearly as clear. It's supposed to be the same error, but the message that goes out for EDI is really easy for anybody to read and understand, but you have to be really solution-savvy to understand the message in the system itself."
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 and BMC Control-M Managed File Transfer, 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.
