We performed a comparison between Genpact Cora SeQuence 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 new reporting and the new dashboard features are really good."
"It is very stable. There is no downtime."
"It is a bundled product stack for A2A and B2B usage. It is one of the best products which I have used during my integration career."
"webMethods Integration Server is an easy-to-use solution and does not require a lot of coding."
"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)."
"The product is very stable."
"The most valuable feature of webMethods Integration Server is all the capabilities it provides. We leverage most of the features, that they have offered to us. Our vendor has made some additional features on top of the webMethods Integration Server and we use all the features together."
"They are the building blocks of EAI in SAG products, and they offer a very good platform."
"Application integration, business process integration, and B2B partner integration are valuable. But among these, I feel B2B partner integration is the most valuable. This module integrates two business partners and exchanges data through electronic data interchange messages in the form of specific standards, without any manual process needed."
"The design of the interface, in general, could be improved. It could be a bit more user-friendly."
"The setup and configuration is complex."
"Business monitoring (BAM) needs improvement because the analytics and prediction module very often has performance problems."
"The market webMethods Integration Server falls under is a very crowded market, so for the product to stand out, Software AG would need to get traction in the open source community by releasing a new version or a base version and open source it, so people can create new custom components and add it to the portfolio."
"Forced migration from MessageBroker to Universal Messaging requires large scale reimplementation for JMS."
"The price should be reduced to make it more affordable."
"This product has too many gaps. You find them after update installations. This should be covered by automatic testing."
"Documentation needs tuning. There is a lot of dependency with SoftwareAG. Even with the documentation at hand, you can struggle to implement scenarios without SAG’s help. By contrast, IBM’s documentation is self-explanatory, in my opinion."
"Rapid application development has to be considered, especially for UI, where user interference is crucial."
"The product must add more compatible connectors."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Genpact Cora SeQuence is ranked 38th in Business Process Management (BPM) while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. Genpact Cora SeQuence is rated 8.6, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Genpact Cora SeQuence writes "It is a very stable and scalable product without downtime". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". Genpact Cora SeQuence is most compared with Appian, IBM BPM, Hubble and Tungsten TotalAgility, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods.io Integration, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks and Boomi AtomSphere Integration. See our Genpact Cora SeQuence 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.