We performed a comparison between SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite and Thru based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Progress Software, BMC, IBM and others in Managed File Transfer (MFT)."SEEBURGER BIS can reconcile documentation, like our accounts payable and statements within the system. If you are manually doing it, then it is really time consuming with a lot of errors. Whereas, SEEBURGER BIS allows for a lot of basic level programming within the documentation, filtering, and sorting out VLOOKUP. It lets us get two database tables from two different systems, then merge them based on the logic that we provide. So, it is a very helpful product."
"We rarely get hanged processes."
"When orders come in they go into our ERP system directly, so there is integration there."
"We had a requirement for transferring data to Amazon S3 buckets but we did not have a solution in our shop for large data transfers to Amazon S3. We worked with SEEBURGER and created a framework solution and now, using that solution, we can configure the transfer in an hour or two and enable it to go to existing or new S3 buckets."
"SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite is a highly stable solution that offers rich features for our B2B integration."
"It's a very robust solution and it's very configurable. Before this product we would use an ESB-type of solution which required us to write code and go through a process. We can configure the SEEBURGER solution much more easily, instead of writing code... It can handle large files very well."
"We can use it to script and monitor processes."
"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."
"The stability of Thru is very good."
"When we got SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS), it was clear that it was going to take more of a technical person. It does take a technically-rooted individual to operate it. It's not something for your everyday guy to do. For what it's doing for us, a dedicated resource is required."
"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."
"Some of the functionality for retriggering documents, where you have to step through a termination process and then retrigger it, versus just being able to restart or retrigger more easily, is a bit challenging, depending on the scenario."
"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."
"In the BIS, if I want to have some API functionalities, that is a separate tool. The integration between the API tool and the BIS is not that straightforward. If they were to combine these tools and give us one suite, that would be helpful. Today I have a lot of partners onboard. I have something like 50,000 partners doing API transactions. If I want to introduce a new tool for API management, I have to do a lot of workarounds. But if it were integrated well within the existing suite, it could be straightforward for me."
"On the server side, there are a lot of administration and configuration files that you need to go in and do maintenance on. You have to find them in a certain folder so it's very error-prone and it can be a little time consuming unless it's documented. They could pull some of those individual configuration files into the product itself where there's a better user interface for that."
"All the topics we've identified have been placed on the SEEBURGER roadmap already... Among the things we have requested are improvements in the user interface and improvements that would be implemented by completely new modules or improvements in their Cloud Services."
"The ability to bind a mapping to an agreement seems a bit clunky. It would be nice to have a better way of navigating to a map name rather than using a drop down list."
"The initial setup of Thru needed an engineer to be involved."
More SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite Pricing and Cost Advice →
SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite is ranked 13th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 37 reviews while Thru is ranked 19th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 1 review. SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite is rated 8.4, while Thru is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite writes "Gives us the flexibility to hook up to systems using any protocol out there". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Thru writes "Scalable, reliable, and excellent support". SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite is most compared with SAP Cloud Platform, IBM Sterling B2B Integration Services, IBM B2B Integrator, Mule ESB and webMethods Integration Server, whereas Thru is most compared with .
See our list of best Managed File Transfer (MFT) vendors.
We monitor all Managed File Transfer (MFT) 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.