We performed a comparison between IBM Case Foundation and webMethods Integration Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Management (BPM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is easy to set up workflows that notify the user depending on certain events."
"The most valuable feature is the content manager part of the file as it is very stable, robust, and reliable."
"The most valuable features are those involving decision making, analysis, and anything related to event documents because those processes are related to content as well."
"The solution is scalable."
"Flexible and the ability to divide search screens, and to search for documents. The ECM feature inside the system is great."
"It provides us the capability of producing business processes for documents that are launched immediately when a document comes into the repository."
"The content management is great."
"It's very easy."
"Currently, we're using this solution for the integration server which helps us to integrate with the mainframe."
"It's obvious that the heart of the product lies here. It's comprised of all aspects of ESB (Enterprise Gateway, Adapter, TN, Java) and BPM (task, rules engine)."
"It has a good integration server, designer, and a very good API portal."
"We have a reusable code that we can replicate for any new interfaces."
"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 tool is very powerful and user-friendly."
"webMethods Integration Server is an easy-to-use solution and does not require a lot of coding."
"The Software AG Designer has been great. It's very intuitive."
"Once a workflow is launched then it stays static forever, which is a problem because if there is a change in the business then you cannot change the workflow."
"IBM needs to update the user interfaces of all its products to make them more intuitive and accessible to beginners. Compared to Microsoft products, IBM solutions are less user-friendly. IBM programs are hard to master. It's a problem in my region because it's hard to find IT staff who can work with IBM."
"We are now using microservices but there are some areas where the coordination with FileNet is problematic."
"Comparing the solution with other interfaces, IBM BPM is much better than Case Foundation. They need to make this solution's interface more user-friendly."
"The service as it currently stands is out-of-date and lacks flexibility."
"The solution can be quite expensive."
"The place of improvement is merging or combining all of the workflow functionality into one seamless tool. Now, there are multiple installations that are different. Case Foundation, before you can put Case Manager and you've got IBM BPM, and the roadmap is there to merge them altogether. But that's the struggle at the moment, it's having multiple installations and disparate workflow applications."
"The cloud version could use more stability."
"We need more dashboards and reporting engines that can provide detailed information for management. In short, we need better analytics."
"webMethods Integration Server needs to add more adapters."
"Forced migration from MessageBroker to Universal Messaging requires large scale reimplementation for JMS."
"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."
"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."
"There should be better logging, or a better dashboard, to allow you to see see the logs of the services."
"The installation process should be simplified for first time users and be made more user-friendly."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Case Foundation is ranked 22nd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 12 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) with 60 reviews. IBM Case Foundation is rated 7.8, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Case Foundation writes "Streamlined business process automation with user-friendly design". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". IBM Case Foundation is most compared with IBM Business Automation Workflow and IBM BPM, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with webMethods.io Integration, IBM Integration Bus, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks and Oracle Service Bus. See our IBM Case Foundation vs. webMethods Integration Server report.
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.