Compare Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer vs. SEEBURGER BIS

Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer is ranked 2nd in Managed File Transfer with 1 review while SEEBURGER BIS is ranked 1st in Managed File Transfer with 18 reviews. Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer is rated 7.0, while SEEBURGER BIS is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer writes "Helps easily connect different environments but monitoring functionality needs work". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SEEBURGER BIS writes "Enables any-to-any transformation from one data format to another". Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer is most compared with IBM Sterling File Gateway, Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct and MOVEit, whereas SEEBURGER BIS is most compared with IBM B2B Integrator, Mule ESB and IBM Sterling B2B Integration Services.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Quotes From Members

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

Pros
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.

Read more »

When orders come in they go into our ERP system directly, so there is integration there.It's the reliability. And the message tracking is quite good, where we can go in and see if we have an issue.The solution's capabilities in fulfilling our existing B2B integration requirements are brilliant. Among our multiple customers we connect to SAP systems, JDE, all the various ERPs that you can possibly get, Oracle procurement systems, etc. We haven't come across anything yet — and customers are trying to trip us up — that we can't do.SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS) has been good at communicating between two applications, changing formats and using the required protocols... We can have one site communicating in an old FTP or SFTP style, or via file transfer. And with other applications, we could have API or a web service call or some other protocol used to send information.What would have been a manual process of transmitting data items around between us and third-parties has been automated. SEEBURGER BIS handles the automation and mapping side of the communications. The automation, along with the efficiency around time and cost, has improved our organization. Around 20,000 messages a month have been automated. These typically would be financial/order transactions and confirmations in invoicing that have been automated.One of the things that SEEBURGER always touts is their ability to do "any to any" formatting... it doesn't matter if you want to take a CSV file or an XML file or a flat file or a PDF file or a structure EDI file; you can transform it from one format to another - any to any or even to the same format - which is a really nice feature.It is a JavaScript or a Java-based system within their mapping tool. You can actually write a lot of code in there. We can perform a lot of the translations even within our mapping, whereas we used to have to do custom programming on our back-end systems to fully integrate.In our landscape, we have a lot of AS/400s or iSeries and SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS) has a file service listener that allows data to seamlessly be transferred between the SEEBURGER solution and the AS/400.

Read more »

Cons
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.Improvement in Data Encoding would be very appreciated (I'm thinking of ASCII-EBCDIC, ASCII-ASCII, etc.).

Read more »

There might be some improvements they could make to the portal, but they're not anything that stops me from working.We don't have much access to the logs or what's happening. So we have to log a ticket with SEEBURGER. We only get a message that something has failed... we have to open a ticket with SEEBURGER for them to tell us exactly what the issue is... I would like us to be able to be more self-sufficient.There are some aspects at the front, the actual queries that you use, that could be improved. They're all very minor to be honest.We wanted to use API. We were told that in 6.52 we could use API management. Later on, we found that API management wasn't that completely integrated into the 6.52 solution, and if you wanted to have the whole API suite you might have to go to 6.7, the latest one.The speed of development needs improvement. If you acquire any customization, it can be a slightly slow process. I would like to see more flexibility around customizations. The time frame right now depends on the sophistication and customization, but we have to go through a process of getting them to develop, implement, and test it. This might take a couple of weeks. If it was a simpler system to customize, the time could probably be cut by half or down by even 25 percent of what it would normally take.The BIS Front End needs a little bit of refreshing, especially when it comes to setting up new trading partners and trading partner agreements or transactions. It can be a bit clumsy to copy and rename and then go in and modify.On the server side, there are a lot of administration and configuration files that you need to go in and do maintenance on. You have to find them in a certain folder so it's very error-prone and it can be a little time consuming unless it's documented. They could pull some of those individual configuration files into the product itself where there's a better user interface for that.They made improvements to the email error alerts that go out, for the EDI technical. Those typically go straight out to the partners. Those messages are significantly clearer and easy to read. The same messages in the front end are not nearly as clear. It's supposed to be the same error, but the message that goes out for EDI is really easy for anybody to read and understand, but you have to be really solution-savvy to understand the message in the system itself.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
Pricing and licensing is related to the protocols you choose to support.

Read more »

There is a standard agreement for the messaging every month. But if we make a change request — a change to a mapping or something like that — then there is a fixed price per hour.We pay per message we use. We spend about £19,000 a year with them.On an annual basis, our support costs, which are based on the licensing, are about £120,000.The cost-based model is slightly different now in SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS). They changed the licensing, based on adapters and other things. In the old style of licensing, the whole suite was one license...Our licensing model is based on transactions. We have a base service contract which is priced against a volume of transactions and another volume of individual transactions, which are covered by one service agreement. Then, we have development services on top of that. Our annual spend is around £80,000. It's about mid-priced, as there are some cheaper alternatives out there and some more expensive ones. It's neither cheap nor expensive. It's somewhere in the middle.We have additional ad hoc development costs, but those vary depending on if we're bringing on another third-party into our systems via the EDI integration. So, that's highly variable.All the new adapters are individually priced, which is good. You don't buy the whole system and then if you don't use it, you don't use it. You only buy the stuff you want...Sometimes it seems a little pricey, especially when some of the stuff is available through freeware, like SFTP communications... It costs a lot more money to buy this stuff from SEEBURGER but I think it's worth it in the long run.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Managed File Transfer solutions are best for your needs.
383,444 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
2nd
Views
3,553
Comparisons
1,484
Reviews
1
Average Words per Review
375
Avg. Rating
7.0
1st
Views
4,358
Comparisons
1,569
Reviews
18
Average Words per Review
1,466
Avg. Rating
8.2
Top Comparisons
Compared 24% of the time.
Compared 20% of the time.
Also Known As
SecureTransport, Axway SecureTransport, AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer, AMPLIFY MFTSeeburger Business Integration Suite
Learn
Axway
Seeburger
Overview
As a multi-protocol MFT gateway, Axway SecureTransport provides the flexibility you need to support virtually any MFT use case. Secure, manage, and track file flows among people and applications inside your enterprise, and beyond your firewall to your user communities, mobile devices, and the cloud. Perform high-volume automated file transfers between systems, sites, lines of business and external partners, to user-driven communications and mobile, folder- and portal-based file sharing.

The SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS) is a central platform for all integration activities. It enables you to respond easily, rapidly and innovatively to your digital transformation challenges:

  • B2B integration: Network and integrate your company with any or all of your business partners.

  • API integration and API management: Establish a framework for networking all of your systems across companies in real-time.

  • Managed File Transfer (MFT) integration: Use secure and simple mechanisms for standardized intra- and cross-company data exchange processes and data integration.

Offer
Learn more about Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer
Learn more about SEEBURGER BIS
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 PosteAltis, Autoliv, Cebi, Cofresco
Top Industries
No Data Available
REVIEWERS
Transportation Company22%
Retailer17%
Pharma/Biotech Company17%
Manufacturing Company11%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company30%
Retailer14%
Manufacturing Company9%
Logistics Company8%
We monitor all Managed File Transfer 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.
Sign Up with Email