We performed a comparison between SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite and SolarWinds Serv-U File Transfer Protocol Server 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)."It is a JavaScript or a Java-based system within their mapping tool. You can actually write a lot of code in there. We can perform a lot of the translations even within our mapping, whereas we used to have to do custom programming on our back-end systems to fully integrate."
"One of the most valuable features is the option to have all integration patterns constantly updated in one platform. That is the main strength I see in using SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS). It means I can use a very old-fashioned pattern, combined with a very modern pattern. There are no limitations in terms of combining components because all the components simply fit together."
"Mapping Designer provides excellent flexibility."
"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."
"It's the reliability. And the message tracking is quite good, where we can go in and see if we have an issue."
"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."
"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."
"The solution is flexible when it comes to adding integrations. It is much easier to use than the other tools we have to move the files. Across the board, we can move files in a short amount of time compared to our other existing tools."
"We use SolarWinds Serv-U File Transfer Protocol Server for internal file transfer."
"I find the solution quite confusing to use, especially when looking at the tree structure."
"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 are a little locked in with understanding the errors that we receive. We are working with their support to prevent these issues when they come into the database. We use a SQL database and believe they can do better when it comes working with large databases. We have had few instances where the system is hanging, which are most likely from the database. We are working with their support to find out the problem and fix their system. We have tried to use their notification system to prevent these issues, but they need to improve their monitoring system."
"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 initial setup is not the straightforward. It took couple of months for us to set up."
"A person whom I work with, and is not very technical, found the setup complex, as there are a lot of steps."
"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."
"The solution’s technical support should be improved."
More SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite Pricing and Cost Advice →
More SolarWinds Serv-U File Transfer Protocol Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite is ranked 13th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 37 reviews while SolarWinds Serv-U File Transfer Protocol Server is ranked 20th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 1 review. SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite is rated 8.4, while SolarWinds Serv-U File Transfer Protocol Server is rated 7.0. 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 SolarWinds Serv-U File Transfer Protocol Server writes "The solution can be used for internal file transfer, but its technical support and third-party integrations should be improved". 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 SolarWinds Serv-U File Transfer Protocol Server is most compared with MOVEit, Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT and WS_FTP Server.
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.