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."This product has been a leader in the field of secure file exchange."
"I have found almost all the features valuable."
"It offers easy utilization of resources for smooth transfers."
"Very high functionality with the ability to plug in your own code."
"The most valuable aspect is that it has good functionality."
"It's highly configurable, there is no need for standalone scripting."
"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."
"The platform has been very consistent and responsive."
"It is stable and reliable. We have not had any issues."
"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 is a JavaScript or a Java-based system within their mapping tool. You can actually write a lot of code in there. We can perform a lot of the translations even within our mapping, whereas we used to have to do custom programming on our back-end systems to fully integrate."
"We use Message Tracking, which is a very good feature. Message Tracking has about 300 to 400 business people who can find documents and ask the integration team about them. For example, they looking for a document that the vendor or trading partner tells them that they sent, but they don't see it in the ERP system yet. So, they go to SEEBURGER Message Tracking, which can tell them if we received it already from the outside and what happened, e.g., if it went to SEEBURGER BIS or if it's already in the ERP system. It's a very simple tool to use. They also can use that tool to see the source document."
"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 rarely get hanged processes."
"The API capabilities could be expanded to make integration more versatile."
"I would like to see auto-deployment without service disruptions."
"The admin console needs some work."
"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."
"There are a lot of service packs during the year. I know that part is the process for updating features, but sometimes it's difficult to update service packs every month."
"Their traditional model is a vendor flow. We are looking to do a customer-based flow, which which require significant development from SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS). We are working with them to do this using their WebEDI. It is a brand new area for them, but it could be an option in the future."
"The integration is not so excellent. While I'm not saying there is a problem, there is no pattern. When we start a new project, we have to work with new people and processes every time. The technical side of their system is very good, but their change process is not repeatable. It needs to be rebuilt each time."
"A person whom I work with, and is not very technical, found the setup complex, as there are a lot of steps."
"On the server side, there are a lot of administration and configuration files that you need to go in and do maintenance on. You have to find them in a certain folder so it's very error-prone and it can be a little time consuming unless it's documented. They could pull some of those individual configuration files into the product itself where there's a better user interface for that."
"SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite does not have an end user or subscriber console which can show the traffic status."
"In some of the other tools out there in the market, you can create one service and use that service without creating a copy. That kind of capability currently doesn't exist in this solution."
"I find the solution quite confusing to use, especially when looking at the tree structure."
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.
