Compare IBM B2B Integrator vs. SEEBURGER BIS

IBM B2B Integrator is ranked 3rd in Business-to-Business Middleware with 3 reviews while SEEBURGER BIS is ranked 1st in Business-to-Business Middleware with 19 reviews. IBM B2B Integrator is rated 8.4, while SEEBURGER BIS is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM B2B Integrator writes "Used to manage your trading partner's community and connections centrally. ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SEEBURGER BIS writes "Enables any-to-any transformation from one data format to another". IBM B2B Integrator is most compared with Mule ESB, SEEBURGER BIS and Axway AMPLIFY Application Integration, whereas SEEBURGER BIS is most compared with IBM B2B Integrator, Mule ESB and IBM Sterling B2B Integration Services. See our IBM B2B Integrator vs. SEEBURGER BIS report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
IBM B2B Integrator Logo
4,374 views|2,277 comparisons
SEEBURGER BIS Logo
4,498 views|1,569 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM B2B Integrator vs. SEEBURGER BIS and other solutions. Updated: January 2020.
390,245 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

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

Pros
Everything from the order to fulfillment to the payment process, except for physical packing and shipping, is fully automated for some customer orders.This solution allows for easy integration with heterogeneous applications.Out-of-box process orchestration yields quick implementations.

Read more »

I like that the tool has all the adapters — all the possible protocols that are in the industry. You pay for those adapters but at least it's all in one package. You don't have to get another tool or application to support another partner.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.

Read more »

Cons
When working on an elaborate rule, I end up creating it in notepad and then pasting it into the Extended Rule window, which is not convenient.Map translator needs more enhancements.End-to-end visibility and monitoring application required. The control center is available and covers this area, but it still fails in many monitoring scenarios.API-Fication required, and there should be more clarity on their cloud migration strategy.

Read more »

It's rather difficult to understand, from the application, what's broken and why it doesn't work. We typically need to get support from them directly, and it's usually in a consulting role, to fix issues.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.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
Information Not Available
We pay maintenance of between $75,000 and $100,000 per year, per box.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...

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business-to-Business Middleware solutions are best for your needs.
390,245 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
Views
4,374
Comparisons
2,277
Reviews
3
Average Words per Review
277
Avg. Rating
8.3
Views
4,498
Comparisons
1,569
Reviews
19
Average Words per Review
1,497
Avg. Rating
8.2
Top Comparisons
Compared 26% of the time.
Compared 16% of the time.
Compared 23% of the time.
Compared 20% of the time.
Also Known As
IBM Sterling B2B Integrator, Sterling Gentran Integration SuiteSeeburger Business Integration Suite
Learn
IBM
Seeburger
Overview

IBM B2B Integrator helps you securely integrate complex B2B processes with your partner communities. It provides a single, flexible B2B gateway that enables your organization to meet a wide range of B2B integration needs. The solution can improve business processes beyond enterprise boundaries and increase visibility into and across supply and demand chains.

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 IBM B2B Integrator
Learn more about SEEBURGER BIS
Sample Customers
Bonnie Plants, Toshiba Europe, Florida HospitalAltis, Autoliv, Cebi, Cofresco
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm21%
Transportation Company16%
Pharma/Biotech Company11%
Energy/Utilities Company11%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company22%
Media Company16%
Manufacturing Company13%
Comms Service Provider9%
REVIEWERS
Retailer22%
Transportation Company17%
Pharma/Biotech Company17%
Logistics Company11%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company30%
Retailer15%
Manufacturing Company8%
Logistics Company7%
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM B2B Integrator vs. SEEBURGER BIS and other solutions. Updated: January 2020.
390,245 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We monitor all Business-to-Business Middleware 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.