Compare SEEBURGER BIS vs. SWIFTnet FIN

SEEBURGER BIS is ranked 1st in Business-to-Business Middleware with 20 reviews while SWIFTnet FIN is ranked 6th in Business-to-Business Middleware with 1 review. SEEBURGER BIS is rated 8.4, while SWIFTnet FIN is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of SEEBURGER BIS writes "Enables any-to-any transformation from one data format to another". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SWIFTnet FIN writes "Has strong stability and professional support". SEEBURGER BIS is most compared with IBM B2B Integrator, Mule ESB, IBM Sterling B2B Integration Services, OpenText Trading Grid and SAP Process Orchestration, whereas SWIFTnet FIN is most compared with SWIFT InterAct.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
SEEBURGER BIS Logo
6,252 views|1,956 comparisons
SWIFTnet FIN Logo
558 views|478 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Use SWIFTnet FIN? Share your opinion.
Find out what your peers are saying about Seeburger, MuleSoft, SAP and others in Business-to-Business Middleware. Updated: July 2020.
430,905 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
It has enabled digital business processes. It's the connection between our ERP system and the rest of the company. We were able to automate processing invoices digitally like an inbound invoice and FastPay payments.If SEEBURGER plans to do something, they will meet their target. We haven't been disappointed by them at all. For example, we had six trading partners to onboard and they said, "We'll make it happen," and they did make it happen. They did exactly what they said they would do. That's a really positive thing.The solution's capabilities in fulfilling our existing B2B integration requirements are brilliant. Among our multiple customers we connect to SAP systems, JDE, all the various ERPs that you can possibly get, Oracle procurement systems, etc. We haven't come across anything yet — and customers are trying to trip us up — that we can't do.I like that the tool has all the adapters — all the possible protocols that are in the industry. You pay for those adapters but at least it's all in one package. You don't have to get another tool or application to support another partner.When orders come in they go into our ERP system directly, so there is integration there.It's the reliability. And the message tracking is quite good, where we can go in and see if we have an issue.SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS) has been good at communicating between two applications, changing formats and using the required protocols... We can have one site communicating in an old FTP or SFTP style, or via file transfer. And with other applications, we could have API or a web service call or some other protocol used to send information.What would have been a manual process of transmitting data items around between us and third-parties has been automated. SEEBURGER BIS handles the automation and mapping side of the communications. The automation, along with the efficiency around time and cost, has improved our organization. Around 20,000 messages a month have been automated. These typically would be financial/order transactions and confirmations in invoicing that have been automated.

More SEEBURGER BIS Pros »

It provides the ability to interact with financial institutions and apply the same rules.

More SWIFTnet FIN Pros »

Cons
API connectivity needs improvement as well as the GUI. The GUI hasn't changed that much in 10 years, but of course, that's already been updated. I would say I'm excited about the screenshots but that's about it.There are some aspects at the front, the actual queries that you use, that could be improved. They're all very minor to be honest.It's rather difficult to understand, from the application, what's broken and why it doesn't work. We typically need to get support from them directly, and it's usually in a consulting role, to fix issues.There might be some improvements they could make to the portal, but they're not anything that stops me from working.We don't have much access to the logs or what's happening. So we have to log a ticket with SEEBURGER. We only get a message that something has failed... we have to open a ticket with SEEBURGER for them to tell us exactly what the issue is... I would like us to be able to be more self-sufficient.We wanted to use API. We were told that in 6.52 we could use API management. Later on, we found that API management wasn't that completely integrated into the 6.52 solution, and if you wanted to have the whole API suite you might have to go to 6.7, the latest one.The speed of development needs improvement. If you acquire any customization, it can be a slightly slow process. I would like to see more flexibility around customizations. The time frame right now depends on the sophistication and customization, but we have to go through a process of getting them to develop, implement, and test it. This might take a couple of weeks. If it was a simpler system to customize, the time could probably be cut by half or down by even 25 percent of what it would normally take.The BIS Front End needs a little bit of refreshing, especially when it comes to setting up new trading partners and trading partner agreements or transactions. It can be a bit clumsy to copy and rename and then go in and modify.

More SEEBURGER BIS Cons »

I would like for them to work in real-time.

More SWIFTnet FIN Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
The only thing that would be an improvement would be if they had a cost model whereby you could just pay for what you're actually using. Even if it were a minimum monthly charge that they offered, if you're not utilizing all of that then they should consider a lower tier. That way, they could attract more business.On an annual basis, our support costs, which are based on the licensing, are about £120,000.We pay maintenance of between $75,000 and $100,000 per year, per box.There is a standard agreement for the messaging every month. But if we make a change request — a change to a mapping or something like that — then there is a fixed price per hour.We pay per message we use. We spend about £19,000 a year with them.The cost-based model is slightly different now in SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS). They changed the licensing, based on adapters and other things. In the old style of licensing, the whole suite was one license...Our licensing model is based on transactions. We have a base service contract which is priced against a volume of transactions and another volume of individual transactions, which are covered by one service agreement. Then, we have development services on top of that. Our annual spend is around £80,000. It's about mid-priced, as there are some cheaper alternatives out there and some more expensive ones. It's neither cheap nor expensive. It's somewhere in the middle.We have additional ad hoc development costs, but those vary depending on if we're bringing on another third-party into our systems via the EDI integration. So, that's highly variable.

More SEEBURGER BIS Pricing and Cost Advice »

Information Not Available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business-to-Business Middleware solutions are best for your needs.
430,905 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
Views
6,252
Comparisons
1,956
Reviews
19
Average Words per Review
1,641
Avg. Rating
8.3
Views
558
Comparisons
478
Reviews
1
Average Words per Review
304
Avg. Rating
9.0
Popular Comparisons
Compared 20% of the time.
Compared 18% of the time.
Compared 100% of the time.
Also Known As
Seeburger Business Integration Suite
Learn
Seeburger
SWIFT
Overview

The SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS) is a central platform for all integration activities. It enables you to respond easily, rapidly and innovatively to your digital transformation challenges:

  • B2B integration: Network and integrate your company with any or all of your business partners.

  • API integration and API management: Establish a framework for networking all of your systems across companies in real-time.

  • Managed File Transfer (MFT) integration: Use secure and simple mechanisms for standardized intra- and cross-company data exchange processes and data integration.

FIN enables financial institutions to exchange individual structured (MT and ISO 15022 message formats) financial messages securely and reliably. FIN is used by over 10,800 financial institutions and their corporate customers worldwide to exchange over 22.3+ million messages per day across a wide range of business areas within the banking and securities industries.

FIN value-added processing includes:

  • Message validation to ensure messages are formatted according to SWIFT message standards.
  • Delivery monitoring and prioritization.
  • Message storage and retrieval.

It is based on a distributed processing architecture with full, built-in redundancy to ensure maximum availability.

Offer
Learn more about SEEBURGER BIS
Learn more about SWIFTnet FIN
Sample Customers
Altis, Autoliv, Cebi, CofrescoAlcatel-Lucent, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Canadian National Railway, General Electric Company, Huawei, Novartis International, Standard Bank, UniCredit, Volvo
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Transportation Company25%
Retailer20%
Pharma/Biotech Company15%
Logistics Company10%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company43%
Non Profit8%
Retailer8%
Comms Service Provider7%
No Data Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Seeburger, MuleSoft, SAP and others in Business-to-Business Middleware. Updated: July 2020.
430,905 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best Business-to-Business Middleware vendors.

We monitor all Business-to-Business Middleware 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.