We performed a comparison between OpenText 360 for SharePoint and webMethods Integration Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Management (BPM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature of OpenText 360 for SharePoint is its performance. The solution is one of the best in the market if you search the internet."
"In terms of its most valuable features, this solution, in general, will provide all you need and it's very convenient to use. We can share our details to collaborative platforms. We can give access to users. It's pretty flexible."
"The fact that it allows for the internal sharing of information is very good."
"OpenText 360's best features are platform independence and its performance when searching large numbers of documents."
"This solution has good connection and we do not need to migrate everything in order to protect the repository."
"The collaborative environment for long-term archival or record management is great."
"It has a lot of flexibility, and Microsoft does come up with some new additions from time to time."
"The most valuable features are collaboration, traceability, retention of documents, and search."
"The messaging part is the most valuable feature."
"webMethods Integration Server is an easy-to-use solution and does not require a lot of coding."
"One valuable feature is that it is event-driven, so when new data is available on the source it can be quickly processed and displayed. Integration is definitely another useful feature, and B2B is one area where webMethods has its own unique thing going, whereby we can do monitoring of transactions, monitoring of client onboarding, and so on."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"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 MFT component of webMethods, for example, is easy to set up and convenient to use. It handles files very efficiently and it is easy to automate tasks with complex schedules. Monitoring is centralized to MWS which can be used to monitor other products as well (Trading Networks, BPM, MFT, etc.)"
"All of the components are very independent but are tied together to give the business value."
"How simple it is to create new solutions."
"Integration is an area where the solution lacks."
"Its licensing needs to be simplified. Currently, its licensing is very complex. It contains a number of pieces, and you have to be an expert in reading all the conditions in the license. They should simplify the licensing and make it easier to understand. It would make a customer's life easier."
"We have a very good time to market tool, and the development platform should be made user-friendly. Mostly, it's just support."
"An area for improvement would be how the platform handles large volumes of documents. It also doesn't provide a very good, robust backup and restore capacity. In the next release, I would like the search technology to be improved."
"The graphical user interface had to be more user-friendly. It's not as intuitive."
"They are not going for any add-ons right now. It's the same version we are still using and there is no plan of upgrading and/or creating any add-ons at all."
"They need to come with more out of the box solutions, rather than depending on customers to develop them."
"OpenText 360 is generally stable, though there are sometimes issues with document size or format."
"We got the product via a reseller, and the support from the reseller has been less than desirable."
"I would like to have a dashboard where I can see all of the communication between components and the configuration."
"On the monitoring side of things, the UI for monitoring could be improved. It's a bit cumbersome to work with."
"The interface needs some work. It is not very user-friendly."
"The product needs to be improved in a few ways. First, they need to stabilize the components of the whole platform across versions. Also, they should stop replacing old components with brand new ones and, rather, improve by evolution."
"The orchestration is not as good as it should be."
"It would be nice if they had a change management system offering. We built our own deployer application because the one built into webMethods couldn't enforce change management rules. Integration into a change management system, along with the version control system, would be a good offering; it's something that they're lacking."
"Business monitoring (BAM) needs improvement because the analytics and prediction module very often has performance problems."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText 360 for SharePoint is ranked 15th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 13 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. OpenText 360 for SharePoint is rated 8.4, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText 360 for SharePoint writes "A great, collaborative environment with scalability for many products". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". OpenText 360 for SharePoint is most compared with Apache Airflow, Bizagi, Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) Forms, IBM BPM and IBM Business Automation Workflow, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods.io Integration, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks and Boomi iPaaS. See our OpenText 360 for SharePoint vs. webMethods Integration Server report.
We monitor all Business Process Management (BPM) 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.