We performed a comparison between SoftExpert BPM and webMethods Integration Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Apache, Pega and others in Business Process Management (BPM)."A complete project management suite in one integrated package."
"The most valuable feature of SoftExpert BPM is its ease of use."
"The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is its reliability. It has a lot of great documentation from the service providers. Additionally, it is easy to use."
"What I like best about webMethods Integration Server is its portfolio of connectors."
"Currently, we're using this solution for the integration server which helps us to integrate with the mainframe."
"One [of the most valuable features] is the webMethods Designer. That helps our developers develop on their own. It's very intuitive for design. It helps our developers to speed the development of services for the integrations."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"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."
"I like the stability of the webMethods Integration Server."
"We needed a tool that was able to orchestrate and help us configure our APIs so that we could maintain and see the heartbeat, traffic, trends, etc."
"It could do more to use all the data it collects to intelligently manage the user experience."
"The form in SoftExpert BPM should improve."
"We'd like for them to open up to a more cloud-based solution that could offer more flexibility and maybe a better rules engine or more integration with rules engines."
"t doesn't represent OOP very well, just a method and proprietary interface called IData."
"For code version control, you need to use some external software."
"A while ago, they were hacked, and it took them a very long time to open their website again in order to download any service packs or any features. I don't know what they could do differently. I know that they were vulnerable, and there was some downtime, but because they were down, we were unable to download any potential service packs."
"The solution has big instances when deployed under microservices or in a containerized platform. They need to improve that so that it is competitive with other integration solutions, like Redis and Kafka. Deployments under microservices with those solutions are much more lightweight, in the size of the runtime itself, compared with Software AG."
"As webMethods Integration Server is expensive, that's its area for improvement."
"One area that needs improvement is the version upgrade process. Many customers I've worked with encounter challenges when transitioning from their current version, such as x or 9, to a newer version. The process is not smooth, and they must shift their entire website."
"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."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
SoftExpert BPM is ranked 23rd in Business Process Management (BPM) with 2 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. SoftExpert BPM is rated 10.0, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of SoftExpert BPM writes "Quick deployment, high availability, and easy to use". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". SoftExpert BPM is most compared with , whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods.io Integration, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks and Boomi AtomSphere Integration.
We monitor all Business Process Management (BPM) 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.