We performed a comparison between Oracle Service Bus and webMethods Integration Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is stable."
"I am a part of the software developing team and I mainly use this solution for the integrating applications."
"Overall it is a pretty good solution."
"Its ease of use is valuable. It's very easy to use. It's no code/low code. Oracle Middleware products are also rich in adapters."
"What I like most about Oracle Service Bus is that you can use it for many integrations. For example, you can use it for on-premises to on-premises integrations, on-premises to cloud integrations, and cloud to on-premises integrations."
"The solution is quite stable overall. We haven't witnessed any performance issues so far."
"It is lightweight and one can easily integrate with different applications, databases, JMS, or web services through different protocols."
"The ability to master the process in one location."
"Ease of implementation and flexibility to hold the business logic are the most valuable features."
"They are the building blocks of EAI in SAG products, and they offer a very good platform."
"Most of the work in our organization can be more easily done using the tool."
"One [of the most valuable features] is the webMethods Designer. That helps our developers develop on their own. It's very intuitive for design. It helps our developers to speed the development of services for the integrations."
"The Software AG Designer has been great. It's very intuitive."
"webMethods platform is used to build an EAI platform, enabling communication between many internal systems and third-party operators."
"Given that you have one integration API in place, it takes very minimal effort to scale it to any other application that might want to use the same. Its flow-based development environment is a breeze and makes it really easy to re-use most of the existing components and build up a new API."
"The solution has a very comprehensive and versatile set of connectors. I've been able to utilize it for multiple, different mechanisms. We do a lot of SaaS and we do have IoT devices and the solution is comprehensive in those areas."
"This solution would benefit from having more cloud-based adapters."
"The inconvenient part about working with this product is that it's very heavy, requiring a lot of people and a lot of resources."
"The connectivity with the solution is an area that needs to be improved. On occasion, requests are lost due to losing connectivity."
"There are issues, especially if you want to create some compensation in your service bin."
"The interface console is very slow. Even in production, we need to increase the RAM or CPU. And even after that, the performance is still not good in production."
"It's very complex and hard to learn. There's a steep learning curve."
"The initial setup is likely complex for many organizations."
"There is significant room for improvement in the monitoring capabilities."
"The product must add more compatible connectors."
"Forced migration from MessageBroker to Universal Messaging requires large scale reimplementation for JMS."
"We'd like for them to open up to a more cloud-based solution that could offer more flexibility and maybe a better rules engine or more integration with rules engines."
"The price should be reduced to make it more affordable."
"Upgrades are complex. They typically take about five months from start to finish. There are many packages that plug into webMethods Integration Server, which is the central point for a vast majority of the transactions at my organization. Anytime we are upgrading that, there are complexities within each component that we must understand. That makes any upgrade very cumbersome and complicated. That has been my experience at this company. Because there are many different business units that we are touching, there are so many different components that we are touching. The amount of READMEs that you have to go through takes some time."
"Need to see more API portal features like monetizing APIs and private cloud readiness."
"The interface needs some work. It is not very user-friendly."
"This is a great solution and the vendor could improve the marketing of the solution to be able to reach more clients."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
Oracle Service Bus is ranked 5th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 25 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. Oracle Service Bus is rated 7.8, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Oracle Service Bus writes "Enables us to do a lot of aggregation and routing, but API response can be a problem if the payload is heavy". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". Oracle Service Bus is most compared with Mule ESB, IBM Integration Bus, Red Hat Fuse, WSO2 Enterprise Integrator and TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Bus, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods.io Integration, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks and Azure Data Factory. See our Oracle Service Bus vs. webMethods Integration Server report.
See our list of best Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) 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.