Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

AWS Glue vs webMethods.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 3, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
6.9
AWS Glue is cost-effective and efficient for managing limited pipelines, offering good ROI despite setup costs.
Sentiment score
7.1
Automating tasks reduced expenses, downtime, and labor needs, with significant time savings and positive returns outperforming competitors.
I advocate using Glue in such cases.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.8
AWS Glue support is helpful and responsive, but response times vary; community resources are useful and premium support can be costly.
Sentiment score
6.6
webMethods.io's customer service is responsive and helpful but occasionally slow for complex issues, with some variability in experiences.
AWS's documentation is reliable, and careful reference often resolves missed upgrade details.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
8.0
AWS Glue offers scalable, serverless data handling with high user ratings, excelling in cloud integration but needing improvements.
Sentiment score
7.2
webMethods.io offers scalable solutions with easy cluster additions and CPU enhancements, though some challenges in connectors and on-premise setups exist.
It is beneficial to upgrade jobs, and we conduct extensive testing in development before migrating to production.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.0
AWS Glue is stable and integrates well, though some users seek improvements in performance with heavy workloads and specific features.
Sentiment score
7.7
webMethods.io is praised for its stability, reliability, and performance, with minimal downtime and effective long-term integration.
 

Room For Improvement

AWS Glue faces criticism for slow startup, limited language support, high cost, and complex interface, needing improved documentation and features.
webMethods.io needs improved support, scalability, affordability, UI, logging, monitoring, version control, AI integration, and simplified processes.
Migrating jobs from version 3.0 to 4.0 can present compatibility issues.
With AWS, I gather data from multiple sources, clean it up, normalize it, de-duplicate it, and make it presentable.
 

Setup Cost

AWS Glue pricing is flexible but can be costly, especially for enterprises, due to DPU usage and additional support costs.
webMethods.io is seen as expensive but offers flexible licensing, making it suitable for larger businesses but costly for small firms.
Costing depends on resource usage, and cost optimization may involve redesigning jobs for flexibility.
AWS charges based on runtime, which can be quite pricey.
 

Valuable Features

AWS Glue offers seamless integration, scalability, cost-effectiveness, and efficient ETL with features like data catalog, triggers, and Glue Studio.
webMethods.io features efficient design, robust EDI, versatile integration, strong security, and flexible event-driven architecture for diverse applications.
For ETL, I feel the performance is excellent. If I create jobs in a standard way, the performance is great, and maintenance is also seamless.
I think if I'm working with big data, common languages like Python work quite nicely, which is advantageous.
 

Categories and Ranking

AWS Glue
Ranking in Cloud Data Integration
1st
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
48
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
webMethods.io
Ranking in Cloud Data Integration
9th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
91
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (4th), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (10th), API Management (10th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the Cloud Data Integration category, the mindshare of AWS Glue is 21.5%, down from 21.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 4.2%, up from 3.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Data Integration
 

Featured Reviews

Muthuvel Sivaraman - PeerSpot reviewer
Handles a huge volume of data and is serverless, but it can be considered costly by some users
We use Amazon's services to provide technical support for the product. If you want to have support, Oracle and others offer a single support, and other tools have a direct support window. For Amazon, we need to pay 10 percent of my billing amount for the tool to get support services. Whether to raise a support ticket or not is an issue since ten percent is a huge amount. My company ends up using all the options without help from support. It is very difficult for any common man to understand why there is a need to pay ten percent for support. If I find an issue in the product, and I need to get support from AWS to fix it, then I need to pay ten percent of the tool's bill amount to Amazon. AWS is a very tricky tool because everything is evolving nowadays. AWS engineers are getting hired from other places, and even after that, if I am not getting any technical support, then things will be very nasty. There are some good engineers who help users outside the normal support cycle, but it doesn't meet their needs. I rate the technical support a four out of ten.
Michele Illiano - PeerSpot reviewer
Can function as an ESB along with the core product, with decent integration of message protocols
I have noticed that webMethods ActiveTransfer has had problems when handling large files. For example, when we receive (and perform operations on) files that are larger than about 16 MB, the software starts losing performance. This is why, for most customers who have to deal with big files, I suggest that they use a product other than ActiveTransfer. I would like to note that this problem mainly concerns large files that undergo extra operations, such assigning, unassigning, or file translation. When these operations take place on large files, ActiveTransfer will use up a lot of resources. Within the product itself, I also believe that there is room for improvement in terms of optimization when it comes to general performance. I suspect that the issues underlying poor optimization are because it is all developed in Java. That is, all the objects and functions that are used need to be better organized, especially when it comes to big files but also overall. webMethods ActiveTransfer was born as an ESB to handle messages, and these messages were typically very short, i.e. small in size. A message is data that you have to send to an application, where it must be received in real-time and possibly processed or acknowledged elsewhere in the system as well. So, because it was initially designed for small messages, it struggles with performance when presented with very large files. All this to say, I suggest that they have an engineer reevaluate the architecture of the product in order to consider cases where large files are sent, and not only small ones. As for new features, compared to other products in the market, I think Software AG should be more up to date when it comes to extra protocol support, especially those protocols that other solutions have included in their products by default. Whenever we need to add an unsupported protocol, we have to go through the effort of custom development in order to work with it. Also, all the banks are obligated to migrate to the new standards, and big companies are all handling translations and operating their libraries with the new protocol formats. But webMethods ActiveTransfer doesn't seem to be keeping up with this evolution. Thus, they should aim to be more compliant in future, along the lines of their competitors such as IBM and Primeur.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
22%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Insurance Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Energy/Utilities Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

How do you select the right cloud ETL tool?
AWS Glue and Azure Data factory for ELT best performance cloud services.
How does Talend Open Studio compare with AWS Glue?
We reviewed AWS Glue before choosing Talend Open Studio. AWS Glue is the managed ETL (extract, transform, and load) from Amazon Web Services. AWS Glue enables AWS users to create and manage jobs in...
What are the most common use cases for AWS Glue?
AWS Glue's main use case is for allowing users to discover, prepare, move, and integrate data from multiple sources. The product lets you use this data for analytics, application development, or ma...
What do you like most about Built.io Flow?
The tool helps us to streamline data integration. Its BPM is very strong and powerful. The solution helps us manage digital transformation.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io is expensive. We have multiple components, and you need to pay for each of them.
What needs improvement with Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io needs to incorporate ChatGPT to enhance user experience. It can offer a customized user experience.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

bp, Cerner, Expedia, Finra, HESS, intuit, Kellog's, Philips, TIME, workday
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS Glue vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.