We performed a comparison between IBM Integration 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."The most valuable features of the IBM Integration Bus are the flexibility to easily integrate with other solutions, such as SAP or any other vendors."
"I found all features valuable. There are a lot of connectors."
"It can be implemented as an enterprise service bus to seamlessly connect all applications within your enterprise."
"REST API design and development support are useful. Building and exposing APIs using GUI API designer with editor makes implementation a breeze."
"Having the solution come from IBM you know you are receiving a product of quality in components and in the services, it is very good."
"It is one of the most stable products which I have seen in the market."
"Web interface, REST API for viewing services, admin, stats, and deployment are premium features, which makes IIB stand among its competition."
"One of the most valuable features is how seamless and easy to use this solution is. This is a fantastic solution and a very measured product."
"webMethods Integration Server is an easy-to-use solution and does not require a lot of coding."
"Application integrations are offered out-of-the-box, and that is extremely important to us. This is one of the main use cases that we have for it. It is about 60 to 70 percent of the workload in our application today."
"A product with good API and EDI components."
"The solution's ease-of-use is its most valuable feature, in which complex issues may be resolved."
"From a user perspective, the feature which I like the most about Integration Server is its designer."
"I feel comfortable using this product with its ease of building interfaces for developers. This is a better integration tool for integrating with various applications like Oracle, Salesforce, mainframes, etc. It works fine in the integration of legacy software as well."
"Operationally, I consider the solution to be quite good."
"It frankly fills the gap between IT and business by having approval and policy enforcement on each state and cycle of the asset from the moment it gets created until it is retired."
"The product does not provide API management."
"Current aggregation implementation should be deprecated. MQ independent, as well as an intuitive solution, should be proposed."
"IBM Integration Bus can improve JSON Schema validations. We don't have any kind of nodes that can support that kind of validation. If we want to containerize it by means of the docker's containers in the clouds, we are not able to manage it very well."
"We decided to move away from IBM Integration Bus for IT technical refreshments."
"To scale virtically, is difficult."
"I would like to see more metered rest and API support. IBM is already working on it on Version 11, but it still needs improvement."
"There are a couple of things I want improved, but I think they have already touched upon all those things in the most recent version. I'm not using the most recent version—I use a version older than the most recent—but I'm sure that if I looked into and explored it, I would see more support on the CI/CD and more support for unit testing automation. I've read that they released all these things in the new version of App Connect. Once I explore the new version of this tool, I'll probably have a better idea of suggested improvements."
"Storage capacity of the product should be addressed."
"Documentation needs tuning. There is a lot of dependency with SoftwareAG. Even with the documentation at hand, you can struggle to implement scenarios without SAG’s help. By contrast, IBM’s documentation is self-explanatory, in my opinion."
"In terms of improvement, it would be better if it adapted quicker to open standards. It took a while for API specification before the last version was available. The spec of version two was rather quick."
"The Software AG Designer could be more memory-efficient or CPU-efficient so that we can use it with middle-spec hardware."
"The solution has big instances when deployed under microservices or in a containerized platform. They need to improve that so that it is competitive with other integration solutions, like Redis and Kafka. Deployments under microservices with those solutions are much more lightweight, in the size of the runtime itself, compared with Software AG."
"We got the product via a reseller, and the support from the reseller has been less than desirable."
"Technical support is an area where they can improve."
"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."
"I would like to have a dashboard where I can see all of the communication between components and the configuration."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Integration Bus is ranked 1st in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 64 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. IBM Integration Bus is rated 8.0, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Integration Bus writes "Scalable solution with efficient integration features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". IBM Integration Bus is most compared with Mule ESB, IBM WebSphere Message Broker, Oracle Service Bus, IBM DataPower Gateway and Red Hat Fuse, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with webMethods.io Integration, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks, Boomi iPaaS and Oracle Service Bus. See our IBM Integration 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.