We performed a comparison between webMethods Integration Server and webMethods.io Integration based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Data Integration solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."When it comes to the user interface, I'm already really used to it. I cannot say anything against it. For me, it's easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of webMethods Integration Server is all the capabilities it provides. We leverage most of the features, that they have offered to us. Our vendor has made some additional features on top of the webMethods Integration Server and we use all the features together."
"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.)"
"It integrates well with various servers."
"The main assets are its flow language, debugging, and Broker. Flow language is far better and more flexible for debugging."
"One [of the most valuable features] is the webMethods Designer. That helps our developers develop on their own. It's very intuitive for design. It helps our developers to speed the development of services for the integrations."
"The comprehensiveness and depth of Integration Servers' connectors to packaged apps and custom apps is unlimited. They have a connector for everything. If they don't, you can build it yourself. Or oftentimes, if there is value for other customers as well, you can talk with webMethods about creating a new adapter for you."
"The synchronous and asynchronous messaging system the solution provides is very good."
"Oracle's self-service capabilities, of which we make extensive use, is the most valuable feature."
"The connectivity that the tool provides, along with the functionalities needed for our company's business, are some of the beneficial aspects of the product."
"It's easy to construct new interfaces like apps and client portals."
"The solution is scalable."
"There's hardware, software and application integration, providing hosting flexibility."
"Our use case is for integration factory for SAP. It is mostly for SAP integration."
"I like the tool's scalability."
"It is quite expensive."
"This solution could be improved by offering subscription based licensing."
"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."
"The product must add more compatible connectors."
"Technical support is an area where they can improve."
"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."
"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."
"Forced migration from MessageBroker to Universal Messaging requires large scale reimplementation for JMS."
"webMethods.io Integration's installation is complex. It should also improve integration and connectors."
"It is difficult to maintain."
"Rules engine processes and BPM processes should be improved."
"The products, at the moment, are new and there should perhaps be support for the older version of the protocols."
"I am not satisfied with the solution because it takes too much effort to migrate and add new information. The migration could be easier."
"The solution's release management feature could be better."
"The product's stability is an area of concern where improvements are required."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews while webMethods.io Integration is ranked 23rd in Cloud Data Integration with 7 reviews. webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0, while webMethods.io Integration is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods.io Integration writes "Though the tool provides great connectivity functionality, it needs to be made more stable". webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks, Boomi iPaaS and Oracle Service Bus, whereas webMethods.io Integration is most compared with SAP Cloud Platform, Apigee, Microsoft Azure API Management, Microsoft Azure Logic Apps and Amazon API Gateway. See our webMethods Integration Server vs. webMethods.io Integration report.
See our list of best Cloud Data Integration vendors.
We monitor all Cloud 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.