We performed a comparison between SAP Signavio Process Manager and webMethods Integration Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Design solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is a stable solution."
"All in all, Signavio usability is excellent. Anyone can learn to use the tool quickly. This increases acceptance as employees are not facing a high learning curve. With the offered usability it is easy to model processes also live in workshops."
"Version management is helpful because I like to try different versions and then decide which of them should be the main model."
"Process management/Process governance is what we think Signavio is very good at."
"The most valuable feature is probably the nature of it."
"The GUI is very easy to use, where you can sit together with your colleagues, discuss the process, and during these discussions you can build up the model."
"There are many valuable features, of course. I would say the main value of Signavio is to have your current process map in a way that is easy to read and derive optimization actions to make it leaner, faster, more user friendly, etc. Another great feature is the visualization, which is easy to see and read. How they map the process is also very user friendly, with drag-and-drop functionality. Also, it's a very self-explanatory, user-friendly solution."
"I really like the Collaboration Hub because it's so easy to communicate. And what is really important is that you can use it asynchronously. It doesn't matter if you're working in Italy or in America. You are using the same process and you can speak about the same process."
"The product supports various types of digital documents, including XMLs and EDI."
"We needed a tool that was able to orchestrate and help us configure our APIs so that we could maintain and see the heartbeat, traffic, trends, etc."
"It has a good integration server, designer, and a very good API portal."
"It's very flexible and a good platform to use."
"We can arrange data caching and look at the solid state. Also, the API gateway is a very good component that can handle relevant cachings and integrations, as well as and also load permitting."
"The ease of mapping... is the single largest feature. It gives us the ability to craft anything. A lot of single-purpose technologies, like Mirth, are good for healthcare messages, but we use webMethods not only for healthcare messages but for other business-related purposes, like integrations to Salesforce or integrations to Office 365. It's multi-purpose nature is very strong."
"The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is its reliability. It has a lot of great documentation from the service providers. Additionally, it is easy to use."
"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."
"It could use a better user interface, one that is more efficient."
"It would be beneficial to have a defined leveling or hierarchy system to facilitate better understanding and analysis. More openness and flexibility would enhance its capabilities."
"I would like to see more integration with the process manager in terms of the workflow accelerator."
"For us, it would help a lot if this solution had floating licenses."
"Moreover, the functionality to show different process variations with "views" could be improved to allow more customization of these views. I believe this would increase the user experience and administrative efforts maintaining these process variations."
"The solution is complex."
"I would like to be able to link a single word within a textual description directly to the glossary."
"There are a few bugs when you use the Microsoft Surface Hub with the big screen."
"We'd like for them to open up to a more cloud-based solution that could offer more flexibility and maybe a better rules engine or more integration with rules engines."
"It is quite expensive."
"t doesn't represent OOP very well, just a method and proprietary interface called IData."
"As webMethods Integration Server is expensive, that's its area for improvement."
"The Software AG Designer could be more memory-efficient or CPU-efficient so that we can use it with middle-spec hardware."
"The patching of infrastructure is not very smooth and improved authentication should be added in the next feature."
"Support is expensive."
"We got the product via a reseller, and the support from the reseller has been less than desirable."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
SAP Signavio Process Manager is ranked 6th in Business Process Design with 57 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. SAP Signavio Process Manager is rated 8.2, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of SAP Signavio Process Manager writes "Has many functionalities and is used to model processes to the former operating model". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". SAP Signavio Process Manager is most compared with Celonis, ARIS BPA, Camunda, Visio and ADONIS, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods.io Integration, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks and Boomi AtomSphere Integration. See our SAP Signavio Process Manager vs. webMethods Integration Server report.
We monitor all Business Process Design 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.
