We performed a comparison between SAS Access and webMethods Integration Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Data Integration solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is you have native access to the external databases."
"The most valuable part of SAS/ACCESS is what it is made for: connecting to remote systems that are not part of your physical SAS environment."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is the ease of access to the data in those databases."
"The tool supports gRPC."
"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."
"The product is very stable."
"What I like best about webMethods Integration Server is its portfolio of connectors."
"The synchronous and asynchronous messaging system the solution provides is very good."
"The solution has a very comprehensive and versatile set of connectors. I've been able to utilize it for multiple, different mechanisms. We do a lot of SaaS and we do have IoT devices and the solution is comprehensive in those areas."
"When it comes to the user interface, I'm already really used to it. I cannot say anything against it. For me, it's easy to use."
"What I found most valuable in webMethods Integration Server is that it's a strong ESB. It also has strong API modules and portals."
"I can't really recall any missing feature or general improvement that is needed. We don't really add too many new kinds of databases and therefore our needs are already met."
"The pricing model needs to be reconsidered and adjusted."
"The solution can provide access to the newer databases that come out sooner."
"I would like to see the price improve."
"t doesn't represent OOP very well, just a method and proprietary interface called IData."
"It could be more user-friendly."
"This is a great solution and the vendor could improve the marketing of the solution to be able to reach more clients."
"As webMethods Integration Server is expensive, that's its area for improvement."
"The certifications and learning resources are not exposed openly enough. For instance, they have a trial version which comes with only a few basic features, and I think that community-wise they need to offer more free or open spaces where developers can feel encouraged to experiment."
"There should be better logging, or a better dashboard, to allow you to see see the logs of the services."
"When migration happens from the one release to an upgraded release from Software AG, many of the existing services are deprecated and developers have to put in effort testing and redeveloping some of the services. It would be better that upgrade releases took care to support the lower-level versions of webMethods."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
SAS Access is ranked 42nd in Data Integration with 3 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. SAS Access is rated 9.0, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of SAS Access writes "The solution is stable, scalable, and flexible". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". SAS Access is most compared with Delphix, SSIS, Zapier and Toad Data Point, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods.io Integration, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks and Boomi AtomSphere Integration. See our SAS Access vs. webMethods Integration Server report.
We monitor all Data Integration 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.