SWIFT InterAct vs webMethods Trading Networks comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
SWIFT Logo
906 views|797 comparisons
Software AG Logo
359 views|190 comparisons
100% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between SWIFT InterAct and webMethods Trading Networks based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about SAP, MuleSoft, IBM and others in Business-to-Business Middleware.
To learn more, read our detailed Business-to-Business Middleware Report (Updated: April 2024).
767,667 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pricing and Cost Advice
Information Not Available
  • "webMethods Trading Networks is a bit costly compared to others solutions."
  • More webMethods Trading Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business-to-Business Middleware solutions are best for your needs.
    767,667 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Ask a question

    Earn 20 points

    Top Answer:webMethods Trading Networks is a stable solution.
    Top Answer:Since webMethods Trading Networks is much like proprietary software, users should try it on the trial version first and do some POC. Overall, I rate webMethods Trading Networks a nine out of ten.
    Ranking
    Views
    906
    Comparisons
    797
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    Views
    359
    Comparisons
    190
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    InterAct
    Learn More
    Overview

    Online and mobile platform for financial service providers that enables consistent interaction between back office and contact center.

    webMethods Trading Networks is a scalable, easy-to-manage gateway for doing business electronically with customers, distributors and trading partners worldwide. This enterprise class B2B gateway is built on webMethods Integration Server, our Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) that automates B2B transactions, such as purchase requisitions, orders and invoices. 

    Sample Customers
    Seceti
    Gist Limited, U.S. Bank, Staples
    Top Industries
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm58%
    Computer Software Company10%
    Manufacturing Company4%
    Retailer4%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm24%
    Computer Software Company13%
    Manufacturing Company10%
    Educational Organization9%
    Company Size
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business11%
    Midsize Enterprise9%
    Large Enterprise81%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business35%
    Midsize Enterprise3%
    Large Enterprise62%
    Buyer's Guide
    Business-to-Business Middleware
    April 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about SAP, MuleSoft, IBM and others in Business-to-Business Middleware. Updated: April 2024.
    767,667 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    SWIFT InterAct is ranked 9th in Business-to-Business Middleware while webMethods Trading Networks is ranked 15th in Business-to-Business Middleware with 4 reviews. SWIFT InterAct is rated 0.0, while webMethods Trading Networks is rated 9.0. On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Trading Networks writes "Beneficial for external interactions, integrates well, and great support". SWIFT InterAct is most compared with SWIFTnet FIN, whereas webMethods Trading Networks is most compared with IBM Sterling B2B Integration Services and IBM B2B Integrator.

    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.