Compare Kong Enterprise vs. SEEBURGER BIS

Kong Enterprise is ranked 8th in API Management with 2 reviews while SEEBURGER BIS is ranked 3rd in API Management with 19 reviews. Kong Enterprise is rated 8.0, while SEEBURGER BIS is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Kong Enterprise writes "A combination firewall and anti-virus solution that is dependable and easy to deploy". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SEEBURGER BIS writes "Enables any-to-any transformation from one data format to another". Kong Enterprise is most compared with WSO2 API Manager, Apigee and Microsoft Azure API Management, 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!
Kong Enterprise Logo
4,483 views|3,956 comparisons
SEEBURGER BIS Logo
5,398 views|1,756 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Google, Broadcom, Seeburger and others in API Management. Updated: March 2020.
406,607 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
In our buying companies' perspective, it was easier to use compared to other platforms. The markets were pretty familiar with the solutions.This is a solid intrusion prevention system that combines a firewall and antivirus in a single solution.

Read more »

If SEEBURGER plans to do something, they will meet their target. We haven't been disappointed by them at all. For example, we had six trading partners to onboard and they said, "We'll make it happen," and they did make it happen. They did exactly what they said they would do. That's a really positive thing.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.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.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.

Read more »

Cons
There should be an easier way to integrate with other solutions, even though it's the same API solution layer. Comparability will be a good improvement.The OS upgrades are not as frequent as they should be and they are bulky.

Read more »

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.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.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
The only thing that would be an improvement would be if they had a cost model whereby you could just pay for what you're actually using. Even if it were a minimum monthly charge that they offered, if you're not utilizing all of that then they should consider a lower tier. That way, they could attract more business.On an annual basis, our support costs, which are based on the licensing, are about £120,000.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.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.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Management solutions are best for your needs.
406,607 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
8th
out of 34 in API Management
Views
4,483
Comparisons
3,956
Reviews
2
Average Words per Review
710
Avg. Rating
8.0
3rd
out of 34 in API Management
Views
5,398
Comparisons
1,756
Reviews
19
Average Words per Review
1,641
Avg. Rating
8.3
Top Comparisons
Compared 28% of the time.
Compared 25% of the time.
Compared 22% of the time.
Compared 19% of the time.
Also Known As
Seeburger Business Integration Suite
Learn
Kong
Seeburger
Overview

Kong delivers a next generation API platform built for modern architectures. With a lightnight-fast, lightweight, and flexible core, Kong delivers sub-millisecond latency across all your services. Kong's is deployment-, vendor-, and pattern-agnostic, allowing you to run your services how you want, where you want, and with who you want - from baremetal to cloud, monolith to microservices, service mesh, and beyond.

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 Kong Enterprise
Learn more about SEEBURGER BIS
Sample Customers
Cargill, Zillow, Ferrari, WeWork, Healthcare.gov, Yahoo! Japan, Giphy, SkyScannerAltis, Autoliv, Cebi, Cofresco
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company33%
Comms Service Provider21%
Media Company6%
Insurance Company6%
REVIEWERS
Retailer21%
Transportation Company21%
Pharma/Biotech Company16%
Manufacturing Company11%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company37%
Retailer9%
Comms Service Provider8%
Wholesaler/Distributor6%
Find out what your peers are saying about Google, Broadcom, Seeburger and others in API Management. Updated: March 2020.
406,607 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We monitor all API Management 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.