We performed a comparison between Pega BPM 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."The most valuable feature of Pega BPM is step-by-step voice guidance that converts your problem statement into different diagrams and then implements the process."
"The interface is quite simple and easy to use, even for beginners."
"The most valuable features of Pega BPM are low code, no code, functionality, and easy development."
"Can do a lot of things with minimum time and cost."
"In general, we use web services to integrate this solution with our other tools. It is the main approach we use with this solution and it integrates with all tools that we need. If you want to integrate with other solutions such ThreatFire or similar, it is possible as well."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is the various workflows."
"Overall, the ability to integrate with multiple applications and effective case management is the most valuable."
"I have a lot of experience in this kind of industry, and Pega is one of the best solutions in terms of performance, capabilities, and the way we develop."
"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 frankly fills the gap between IT and business by having approval and policy enforcement on each state and cycle of the asset from the moment it gets created until it is retired."
"The tool supports gRPC."
"Operationally, I consider the solution to be quite good."
"Best feature is Insight for monitoring, and as a debugging tool. It has saved us a lot of time during crisis situations."
"Most of the work in our organization can be more easily done using the tool."
"Broker and UM are the best features."
"The stability is good."
"We have experienced a few technical challenges, particularly triggering the workflow through file drops and accessing files."
"It is scalable, but it also interacts with a lot of other systems. I think they thought that the interface to other systems, legacy systems, was its strength, but when problems do occur, quickly diagnosing those problems has been a challenge."
"We need more light retail BPM tools within the Pega system. However, Pega is mostly for big companies."
"It should have integration with non-relational databases. A lot of databases are non-relational, and as a company, we are planning to move to NoSQL or open-source databases. It would be good if we are able to install and use Pega on a NoSQL database. They can also try to tailor or organize the company a bit differently and go more towards the microservice concept. I would like Pega to develop machine learning and intelligent AI algorithms. They have a good foundation in terms of the model and the stuff that we are using for some customers, and it will be good to onboard as many machine learning algorithms as possible."
"The workflow automation can be slow, so there is room for improvement there."
"The cost of licensing could be improved."
"Reporting is not so clear and not so great. We really struggle to get the right reporting. When we need reporting based on the content of the tickets, we are not able to get it. The MIS reporting is not great. That's one of the reasons why we are switching to ServiceNow. Its compatibility with the higher versions of Internet Explorer should be improved. It really works well in Mozilla Firefox or any other browser, but when it comes to Microsoft Edge or Internet Explorer, sometimes, the layout gets disturbed. The positioning of the buttons changes, and there is some distortion in the layout. I am not sure whether it is our configuration problem or Pega's, but when it is working in Mozilla Firefox, it should also work in Microsoft Edge or Internet Explorer."
"Pega is claiming they're into low code but as per Gartner Magic Quadrant, Pega is not there now."
"For code version control, you need to use some external software."
"Other products have been using AI and cloud enhancements, but webMethods Integration Server is still lagging in that key area."
"This product has too many gaps. You find them after update installations. This should be covered by automatic testing."
"The product must add more compatible connectors."
"As webMethods Integration Server is expensive, that's its area for improvement."
"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."
"The patching of infrastructure is not very smooth and improved authentication should be added in the next feature."
"Support is expensive."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
Pega BPM is ranked 3rd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 55 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. Pega BPM is rated 8.2, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Pega BPM writes "Low code with great APIs and good flexibility". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". Pega BPM is most compared with ServiceNow, Camunda, Appian, Microsoft Power Apps and IBM BPM, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods.io Integration, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks and Boomi AtomSphere Integration. See our Pega BPM 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.