Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer vs webMethods ActiveTransfer comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Axway AMPLIFY Managed File ...
Ranking in Managed File Transfer (MFT)
11th
Average Rating
7.8
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
webMethods ActiveTransfer
Ranking in Managed File Transfer (MFT)
17th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Market share comparison

As of June 2024, in the Managed File Transfer (MFT) category, the market share of Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer is 4.3% and it increased by 36.0% compared to the previous year. The market share of webMethods ActiveTransfer is 0.7% and it increased by 36.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Managed File Transfer (MFT)
Unique Categories:
No other categories found
No other categories found
 

Featured Reviews

PradeepSingh1 - PeerSpot reviewer
Jul 19, 2023
Secure application with efficient features for file transfer management
We use the application to transfer and exchange data files between customers and vendors AMPLIFY has all the essential features for managing file transfer. Sometimes, the application's embedded databases couldn't perform well for a higher volume of data. Thus, legacy licensing for these…
Michele Illiano - PeerSpot reviewer
Nov 18, 2022
Can function as an ESB along with the core product, with decent integration of message protocols
I have noticed that webMethods ActiveTransfer has had problems when handling large files. For example, when we receive (and perform operations on) files that are larger than about 16 MB, the software starts losing performance. This is why, for most customers who have to deal with big files, I suggest that they use a product other than ActiveTransfer. I would like to note that this problem mainly concerns large files that undergo extra operations, such assigning, unassigning, or file translation. When these operations take place on large files, ActiveTransfer will use up a lot of resources. Within the product itself, I also believe that there is room for improvement in terms of optimization when it comes to general performance. I suspect that the issues underlying poor optimization are because it is all developed in Java. That is, all the objects and functions that are used need to be better organized, especially when it comes to big files but also overall. webMethods ActiveTransfer was born as an ESB to handle messages, and these messages were typically very short, i.e. small in size. A message is data that you have to send to an application, where it must be received in real-time and possibly processed or acknowledged elsewhere in the system as well. So, because it was initially designed for small messages, it struggles with performance when presented with very large files. All this to say, I suggest that they have an engineer reevaluate the architecture of the product in order to consider cases where large files are sent, and not only small ones. As for new features, compared to other products in the market, I think Software AG should be more up to date when it comes to extra protocol support, especially those protocols that other solutions have included in their products by default. Whenever we need to add an unsupported protocol, we have to go through the effort of custom development in order to work with it. Also, all the banks are obligated to migrate to the new standards, and big companies are all handling translations and operating their libraries with the new protocol formats. But webMethods ActiveTransfer doesn't seem to be keeping up with this evolution. Thus, they should aim to be more compliant in future, along the lines of their competitors such as IBM and Primeur.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The product is simple for encrypting data transfer of all the assets in our system."
"Axway consolidated all of our communications into one platform, simplifying network and port management. Now, all we have to do is open one port to this application, and we can remove all the firewall rules on that port. It's much more straightforward to manage from a security perspective. We used to rely on an archaic FTP solution, but Axway features SFTP, so it was an improvement security-wise."
"It’s very flexible."
"It makes a logical link between the inbound/outbound transfer, and makes it clearly visible. This is a very important feature for managing transfer with different environments, and it's very helpful in case of troubleshooting."
"It is an easy-to-use and stable product."
"AMPLIFY has all the essential features for managing file transfer."
"ActiveTransfer lets us maintain the file in the staging area before we transfer it. After that, we can remove the file to make sure that the reconciliation process is done. Sometimes we will zip and unzip the files, but if we have a GKB file, we often ignore it."
"The core product can be used not only for automatic file transfers between applications, but also as an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)."
 

Cons

"We only hope that they continue to keep updating the solution and improving the offering. They could always do more updates and releases."
"The areas in need of improvement are the monitoring and the cut-off management, when needed. Today you have at least two solutions: Buy the other Axway suite, Sentinel, or integrate it into your monitoring system."
"It is complicated to manage multi-operations, particularly in handling file name changes within file transcripts."
"The initial setup was quite complex."
"Improvement in Data Encoding would be very appreciated (I'm thinking of ASCII-EBCDIC, ASCII-ASCII, etc.)."
"One area of improvement is troubleshooting. When a transfer fails, they provide little information about the login, which makes troubleshooting difficult. Also, file transfer scheduling is primitive. By that, I mean you can't define a complex schedule, like scheduling a job to run at particular hours multiple times in a day."
"Sometimes, the application's embedded databases couldn't perform well for a higher volume of data."
"Some things could be improved, especially how ActiveTransfer handles third-party file transfers. It would be nice to have a native file-watching mechanism for when you're scheduling jobs with a third-party scheduler. Currently, we are using an outside file watcher solution to check the files before the file transfer. It checks the location to see if the file is there. If the file is there, it will prepare it for transfer. If the file isn't available, it will send an email it can create a ticket send it now. We recommended adding this file watcher mechanism."
"I have noticed that webMethods ActiveTransfer has had problems when handling large files. For example, when we receive (and perform operations on) files that are larger than about 16 MB, the software starts losing performance."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The platform's price aligns with the market."
"Pricing and licensing is related to the protocols you choose to support."
"AMPLIFY's license is a one-time investment."
"It is quite expensive, and because of that, we get good service from them in return for the price paid."
"Sometimes we don't have a very clear idea what the licensing will entail at first, because it can be very customizable. On one hand, this can be a good thing, because it can be tailored to a specific customer's needs. But on the other hand it can also be an issue when some customer asks, "What's the cost?" and we can't yet give them an accurate answer."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Managed File Transfer (MFT) solutions are best for your needs.
787,226 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
29%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer?
The product is simple for encrypting data transfer of all the assets in our system.
What needs improvement with Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer?
It is complicated to manage multi-operations, particularly in handling file name changes within file transcripts. This particular area needs improvement. There could be an endpoint connection for m...
What do you like most about webMethods ActiveTransfer?
The core product can be used not only for automatic file transfers between applications, but also as an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB).
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for webMethods ActiveTransfer?
The licensing depends on the type of customer, so I would refrain from talking about it in an absolute kind of way. Overall, it's somewhat expensive, and depending on customer requirements, there a...
What needs improvement with webMethods ActiveTransfer?
I have noticed that webMethods ActiveTransfer has had problems when handling large files. For example, when we receive (and perform operations on) files that are larger than about 16 MB, the softwa...
 

Also Known As

SecureTransport, Axway SecureTransport, AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer, AMPLIFY MFT
No data available
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

BNP Paribas Securities Services, Bollor_, E.ON AG Group, BMW Group, IdenTrust, Gassco, International Post Corporation, SNCF, DB Schenker Logistics, Logius, CSCA, La Poste
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer vs. webMethods ActiveTransfer and other solutions. Updated: June 2024.
787,226 professionals have used our research since 2012.