We performed a comparison between SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite and TIBCO Managed File Transfer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Managed File Transfer (MFT) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Mapping Designer provides excellent flexibility."
"We haven't had any issues with scaling."
"We rarely get hanged processes."
"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."
"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 entire framework is something that is very easy to use, easy to set up, and extremely straightforward. Once you develop a process and once you get it deployed within the process engine, with the latest 6.52 features, the processing engine is actually smart enough to make a decision as to which process engine has less load, and it can exchange messages with that process engine."
"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."
"We can use it to script and monitor processes."
"TIBCO has its own integration tool."
"They have great multi-factor authentication for extra security."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to do centralized administration."
"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."
"The initial set up was done by SEEBURGER consulting. It can be complex due to various factors, such as server settings, database settings, and security settings."
"They made improvements to the email error alerts that go out, for the EDI technical. Those typically go straight out to the partners. Those messages are significantly clearer and easy to read. The same messages in the front end are not nearly as clear. It's supposed to be the same error, but the message that goes out for EDI is really easy for anybody to read and understand, but you have to be really solution-savvy to understand the message in the system itself."
"I would've liked, from day one, to learn how to do my own mapping. That would have saved a lot of time and effort if that had been brought forward earlier. It's there, I just didn't know about it. Also, some tidier, easier-to-use interfaces would help."
"In some of the other tools out there in the market, you can create one service and use that service without creating a copy. That kind of capability currently doesn't exist in this solution."
"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."
"I find the solution quite confusing to use, especially when looking at the tree structure."
"They have their own private cloud. That's the reason we did not go ahead with managing everything by ourselves or moving into the cloud. They said that they're going to be doing it within the next two years, having access to Azure and AWS. That would be something we would like to see."
"Their cloud product is not yet stable."
"I think some of the automated deployment features could use some assistance, which is an area where it currently lacks. The product needs some ability to help it with the deployment model, which is a little difficult."
"The UI could be better."
More SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite Pricing and Cost Advice →
SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite is ranked 14th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 37 reviews while TIBCO Managed File Transfer is ranked 15th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 3 reviews. SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite is rated 8.4, while TIBCO Managed File Transfer is rated 7.6. 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 TIBCO Managed File Transfer writes "Serves as a straightforward SFTP server that offers reasonably good support". SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite is most compared with SAP Cloud Platform, IBM Sterling B2B Integration Services, Mule ESB, IBM B2B Integrator and Microsoft Azure API Management, whereas TIBCO Managed File Transfer is most compared with IBM Sterling File Gateway, Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT, Axway AMPLIFY Managed File Transfer, MOVEit and CA XCOM Data Transport. See our SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite vs. TIBCO Managed File Transfer report.
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.