We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"EDI is robust and integration with SAP is good."
"The solution has a very comprehensive and versatile set of connectors. I've been able to utilize it for multiple, different mechanisms. We do a lot of SaaS and we do have IoT devices and the solution is comprehensive in those areas."
"It's very flexible and a good platform to use."
"The ease of mapping... is the single largest feature. It gives us the ability to craft anything. A lot of single-purpose technologies, like Mirth, are good for healthcare messages, but we use webMethods not only for healthcare messages but for other business-related purposes, like integrations to Salesforce or integrations to Office 365. It's multi-purpose nature is very strong."
"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 most valuable feature is stability."
"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."
"The tool is very powerful and user-friendly."
"I like the stability of the webMethods Integration Server."
"Scalability and connectors to different cloud applications is lacking."
"I would like to see the price improve."
"Upgrades are complex. They typically take about five months from start to finish. There are many packages that plug into webMethods Integration Server, which is the central point for a vast majority of the transactions at my organization. Anytime we are upgrading that, there are complexities within each component that we must understand. That makes any upgrade very cumbersome and complicated. That has been my experience at this company. Because there are many different business units that we are touching, there are so many different components that we are touching. The amount of READMEs that you have to go through takes some time."
"I would like to have a dashboard where I can see all of the communication between components and the configuration."
"The price should be reduced to make it more affordable."
"The installation process should be simplified for first time users and be made more user-friendly."
"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."
"I'd like to see the admin portal for managing the integration server go up a level, to have more capabilities and to be given a more modern web interface."
"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."
"This is an expensive product and we may replace it with something more reasonably priced."
"I would like to see better pricing for the license."
"I do think webMethods is coming under increasing pressure when it comes to their price-to-feature value proposition. It's probably the single biggest strategic risk they have. They're very expensive in their industry. They've been raising the price recently, especially when compared with their competitors."
"The pricing and licensing costs for webMethods are very high, which is the only reason that we might switch to another product."
"The price is a little bit high, especially regarding their support."
"Currently, the licensing solution for this product is pretty straightforward. The way that Software AG has moved in their licensing agreements is very understandable. It is very easy for you to see where things land. Like most vendors today, they are transaction based. Therefore, just having a good understanding of how many transactions that you are doing a year would be very wise. Luckily, there are opportunities to work with the vendor to get a good understanding of how many transactions you have and what is the right limit for you to fall under."
"It's a good deal for the money that we pay."
"Pricing is the number-one downfall. It's too expensive. They could make more money by dropping the price in half and getting more customers. It's the best product there is, but it's too expensive."
Earn 20 points
Connect apps, devices and on-premise systems to automate business processes using an intuitive, smart user interface. Build integrations that drive digital transformation in your organization.
The award-winning webMethods Integration Server, our Enterprise Service Bus (ESB), is a complete enterprise application integration solution. It's standards-based so it "speaks" any technology. You can integrate any technology from any vendor: ERP systems, databases, mainframes and legacy apps. SaaS platforms, Web services, JMS messaging systems and packaged apps.
Built.io Flow is ranked 11th in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) with 1 review while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 1st in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 12 reviews. Built.io Flow is rated 7.0, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Built.io Flow writes "Robust with good SAP integration; lacking in connectors to different cloud applications". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Its single hybrid-integration platform makes it easy to troubleshoot and quickly resolve issues. Upgrades are complex". Built.io Flow is most compared with , whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with Mule ESB, IBM Integration Bus, SAP Process Orchestration, Mule Anypoint Platform and Oracle Service Bus.
We monitor all Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) 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.