We performed a comparison between IBM InfoSphere DataStage and webMethods Integration Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Data Integration solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."ETL is the most valuable feature."
"It works with multiple servers and offers high availability."
"The most valuable feature is the product's versatility to inject data."
"The solution is very easy to use."
"The solution has improved the time it takes to perform tasks related to batch applications."
"Offers great flexibility."
"The Hierarchical Data Stage is good."
"In IBM DataStage, the Transformer is the most valuable feature for me. It enables me to apply complex transformations, generate the gateway key, and map source tables into the session table."
"How simple it is to create new solutions."
"I feel comfortable using this product with its ease of building interfaces for developers. This is a better integration tool for integrating with various applications like Oracle, Salesforce, mainframes, etc. It works fine in the integration of legacy software as well."
"It's a visual tool, so our transformations can be quickly implemented without a lot of fuss. The fact that we have an easy way to expose REST services is also very interesting. It offers the possibility to connect over GMS to synchronize message brokers."
"The main assets are its flow language, debugging, and Broker. Flow language is far better and more flexible for debugging."
"It has a good integration server, designer, and a very good API portal."
"webMethods Integration Server is an easy-to-use solution and does not require a lot of coding."
"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 solution's ease-of-use is its most valuable feature, in which complex issues may be resolved."
"The graphical user interface (GUI) feels a lot like the interfaces from the 1980s."
"The initial setup could be more straightforward."
"In terms of intermediate storage, we have some challenges, especially with customers who store data in intermediate locations."
"I'd like to be able to do more with the data and metadata, including copy and pasting, et cetera."
"I really like this tool, but the administration should be on the same client application because a lot of administration features are not on the client-side, and they usually need to have administrative access. It's quite complicated to force IT teams to have separate administrative access from the developers."
"The response time from support is slow and needs to be improved."
"Currently lacking virtualization ability."
"There could be more customization options for the product."
"Technical support is an area where they can improve."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"One area that needs improvement is the version upgrade process. Many customers I've worked with encounter challenges when transitioning from their current version, such as x or 9, to a newer version. The process is not smooth, and they must shift their entire website."
"This product is for larger companies. Compared to TIBCO I think webMethods is better in terms of ease of use and support."
"Version control is not very easy. The packages and the integration server are on Eclipse IDE, but you can't compare the code from the IDE. For example, if you are working on Java code, doing version control and deployment for a quick comparison between the code isn't easy. Some tools or plug-ins are there, such as CrossVista, and you can also play with an SVN server where you have to place your package, and from there, you can check, but you have to do that as a separate exercise. You can't do it from the IDE or webMethods server. You can't just right-click and upload your service."
"I would like to see the price improve."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM InfoSphere DataStage is ranked 7th in Data Integration with 37 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. IBM InfoSphere DataStage is rated 7.8, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM InfoSphere DataStage writes "User-friendly with a lot of functions for transmission rules, but has slow performance and not suitable for a huge volume of data". 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 InfoSphere DataStage is most compared with IBM Cloud Pak for Data, SSIS, Azure Data Factory, Talend Open Studio and Informatica PowerCenter, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods.io Integration, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks and Boomi AtomSphere Integration. See our IBM InfoSphere DataStage vs. webMethods Integration Server report.
We monitor all Data Integration 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.