We performed a comparison between TIBCO BusinessWorks and webMethods Integration Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Data Integration solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most important thing is that it is easy for developers to work with."
"The solution is very scalable. It can handle a lot. We have encryption plus integration servers running on that platform currently."
"The ability to link to different technologies is valuable to us."
"It is a seamless and sophisticated tool."
"XML to JSON transformations, out-of-the-box, helps to build REST services."
"It is very stable. It is a market leader, and it has connectors to many of the legacy systems. It also has enterprise cloud connectors."
"The Business Studio interface based on SCA Standards helps to show the business logic at first look and improve code maintenance."
"The most valuable features are the stability and the time to market."
"How simple it is to create new solutions."
"The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is its reliability. It has a lot of great documentation from the service providers. Additionally, it is easy to use."
"Operationally, I consider the solution to be quite good."
"They are the building blocks of EAI in SAG products, and they offer a very good platform."
"The product is very stable."
"From a user perspective, the feature which I like the most about Integration Server is its designer."
"webMethods platform is used to build an EAI platform, enabling communication between many internal systems and third-party operators."
"High throughput and excellent scalability."
"A possible improvement could be to give the capability to use different profiles for each AppNode when an application is deployed on an AppSpace."
"TIBCO BusinessWorks could be improved with cloud support."
"Its price can be improved. For medium enterprises, it is a very expensive tool. In the market, you won't get many resources for this solution. You won't find many developers in the market very easily. The latest version of TIBCO (6.4 or 6.x) is not very stable. It has got many issues. We have raised this with TIBCO, and they are taking a lot of time to come up with a fix, which is making us move away from this product. Some of the performance-tuning aspects are also missing in version 6. They should provide performance-related fixes, which will be helpful for the customers. If you are migrating from the current version to the container-supported version, it is quite expensive. The product has evolved, but it is very pricey. That's one of the challenges. They have provided all the features that are there in other products, but this is a platform upgrade. The platform has completely been changed from 5.x to 6.x, and we can't use the same environment. We can't run both versions on the same server as VM. The development environment is entirely different. In version 5.x, there was a proprietary designer. Now, it has common plug-ins developed on top of Eclipse."
"The cost of this product is too expensive for smaller companies or those with a small number of integrations."
"Could be more user friendly in the development area."
"This solution's cloud could be improved. I don't know whether it was because we didn't have the internal expertise or if it was the product itself, but since they came later—I think only two or three years into the cloud—after many other iPaaS that had been in the cloud for longer, I feel that maybe they haven't matured in terms of the cloud."
"Technical support is average. It's not the best."
"There are multiple plugins which increase the number of product installations."
"wM SAP Adapter User Guide - Example, like Message Broker setup was unclear, leading to issues during Testing and we had refer the internet forums to understand that there is a Message Broker Cleanup utility and that needs to be setup as well."
"It could be more user-friendly."
"The logging capability has room for improvement. That way, we could keep a history of all the transactions. It would be helpful to be able to get to that without having to build a standalone solution to do so."
"t doesn't represent OOP very well, just a method and proprietary interface called IData."
"We got the product via a reseller, and the support from the reseller has been less than desirable."
"The interface needs some work. It is not very user-friendly."
"The initial setup of the webMethods Integration Server is not easy but it gets easier once you know it. It is tiresome but not difficult."
"One area that needs improvement is the version upgrade process. Many customers I've worked with encounter challenges when transitioning from their current version, such as x or 9, to a newer version. The process is not smooth, and they must shift their entire website."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
TIBCO BusinessWorks is ranked 18th in Data Integration with 23 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. TIBCO BusinessWorks is rated 8.0, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of TIBCO BusinessWorks writes "Reliable integration solution with robust communication capabilities and good scalability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". TIBCO BusinessWorks is most compared with Mule Anypoint Platform, Spring Cloud Data Flow, Talend Open Studio, Confluent and Informatica PowerCenter, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods.io Integration, Mule ESB, Boomi AtomSphere Integration and Oracle Service Bus. See our TIBCO BusinessWorks vs. webMethods Integration Server report.
We monitor all Data Integration 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.
