We performed a comparison between Magic xpi Integration Platform and webMethods Integration Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about MuleSoft, Microsoft, Oracle and others in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)."The stability of the solution is OK."
"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."
"I would say the core Web-based integrations work the best. They are the most efficient and robust implementations one can do with webMethods."
"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)."
"How simple it is to create new solutions."
"The stability is good."
"Ease of implementation and flexibility to hold the business logic are the most valuable features."
"The synchronous and asynchronous messaging system the solution provides is very good."
"What I found most valuable in webMethods Integration Server is that it's a strong ESB. It also has strong API modules and portals."
"It is not performing well."
"On the monitoring side of things, the UI for monitoring could be improved. It's a bit cumbersome to work with."
"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."
"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."
"Large file handling is pretty hard comparatively to other middleware tools."
"This is a great solution and the vendor could improve the marketing of the solution to be able to reach more clients."
"Forced migration from MessageBroker to Universal Messaging requires large scale reimplementation for JMS."
"As webMethods Integration Server is expensive, that's its area for improvement."
"For code version control, you need to use some external software."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Magic xpi Integration Platform is ranked 23rd in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. Magic xpi Integration Platform is rated 3.0, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Magic xpi Integration Platform writes "A low-performing integration tool". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". Magic xpi Integration Platform is most compared with Mule ESB, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods.io Integration, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks and Boomi AtomSphere Integration.
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.