We performed a comparison between Apache Airflow and webMethods Integration Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Apache, Pega and others in Business Process Management (BPM)."The product integrates well with other pipelines and solutions."
"The tool is user-friendly."
"Since Apache works very well on Python, we can manage everything and create pipelines there."
"I like the UI rework, it's much easier."
"We're running it on a virtual server, which we can easily upgrade if needed."
"Development on Apache Airflow is really fast, and it's easy to use with the newer updates. Everything is in Python, so it's not hard to understand. They also have a graphical view, so if you are not a programmer and you are just an administrator, you can easily track everything and see if everything is working or not."
"Since the solution is programmatic, it allows users to define pipelines in code rather than drag and drop."
"We have been quite satisfied with the stability of the solution."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"They are the building blocks of EAI in SAG products, and they offer a very good platform."
"Ease of implementation and flexibility to hold the business logic are the most valuable features."
"How simple it is to create new solutions."
"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."
"From a user perspective, the feature which I like the most about Integration Server is its designer."
"What I found most valuable in webMethods Integration Server is that it's a strong ESB. It also has strong API modules and portals."
"The main assets are its flow language, debugging, and Broker. Flow language is far better and more flexible for debugging."
"Enhancements become necessary when scaling it up from a few thousand workflows to a more extensive scale of five thousand or ten thousand workflows."
"The scalability of the solution itself is not as we expected. Being on the cloud, it should be easy to scale, however, it's not."
"UI can be improved with additional user-friendly features for non-programmers and for fewer coding practitioner requirements."
"We're currently using version 1.10, but I understand that there's a lot of improvements in version 2. In the earlier version that we're using, we sometimes have problems with maintenance complexity. Actually using Airflow is okay, but maintaining it has been difficult."
"The problem with Apache Airflow is that it is an open-source tool. You have to build it into a Kubernetes container, which is not easy to maintain, and I find it to be very clunky."
"I would like to see it more friendly for other use cases."
"Apache Airflow could be improved with the addition of more frameworks."
"We have faced scenarios where Apache Airflow becomes non-responsive, leading to job failures. To resolve such situations, we had to manually reboot Apache Airflow since it doesn't provide an option to restart within the application. This necessitated modifying some configurations to initiate a restart of all Apache Airflow components. Although Apache Airflow is generally dependable, it may occasionally encounter glitches that can disrupt production flows and batches."
"The market webMethods Integration Server falls under is a very crowded market, so for the product to stand out, Software AG would need to get traction in the open source community by releasing a new version or a base version and open source it, so people can create new custom components and add it to the portfolio."
"The installation process should be simplified for first time users and be made more user-friendly."
"When migration happens from the one release to an upgraded release from Software AG, many of the existing services are deprecated and developers have to put in effort testing and redeveloping some of the services. It would be better that upgrade releases took care to support the lower-level versions of webMethods."
"webMethods Integration Server could improve on the version control. I'm not sure if Web Method has some kind of inbuilt integration with Bitbucket or GitHub or some kind of version control system. However, that's one area where they can improve."
"I would like to have a dashboard where I can see all of the communication between components and the configuration."
"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."
"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."
"Support is expensive."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
Apache Airflow is ranked 2nd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 31 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. Apache Airflow is rated 8.0, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Apache Airflow writes "Enable seamless integration with various connectivity and integrated services, including BigQuery and Python operators ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". Apache Airflow is most compared with Camunda, Informatica Cloud API and App Integration, 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 AtomSphere Integration.
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.