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

CloverETL vs webMethods.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

CloverETL
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Data Integration (65th), Data Visualization (47th)
webMethods.io
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
92
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (3rd), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (10th), API Management (10th), Cloud Data Integration (7th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)
 

Featured Reviews

it_user854766 - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides wealth of pre-defined, customizable components, and descriptive logging for errors
* Familiar, intuitive GUI (Eclipse plug-in) coming from a Java development background. * In-depth, descriptive, and well-laid-out documentation. * Responsive support through forums, even directly from Clover staff. * Wealth of pre-defined components. * All components are customizable. * Descriptive logging, especially for error messages. * Ease of install/light footprint.
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Key features include wealth of pre-defined components; all components are customizable; descriptive logging, especially for error messages."
"No dependence on native language and ease of use.​​"
"Connectivity to various data sources: The ability to extract data from different data sources gives greater flexibility."
"Server features for scheduler: It is very easy to schedule jobs and monitor them. The interface is easy to use."
"Ease of implementation and flexibility to hold the business logic are the most valuable features."
"The performance is good."
"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."
"The developer portal is a valuable feature."
"There were no complexities involved in the setup phase...The product is able to meet my company's API protection needs."
"It has a good integration server, designer, and a very good API portal."
"I feel comfortable using this product with its ease of building interfaces for developers. This is a better integration tool for integrating with various applications like Oracle, Salesforce, mainframes, etc. It works fine in the integration of legacy software as well."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
 

Cons

"Needs: easier automated failure recovery; more, and more intuitive auto-generated/filled-in code for components; easier/more automated sync between CloverETL Designer and CloverETL Server."
"Its documentation could be improved.​"
"​Resource management: We typically run out of heap space, and even the allocation of high heap space does not seem to be enough.​"
"The product's stability is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"This product has too many gaps. You find them after update installations. This should be covered by automatic testing."
"Understanding the overall architecture is difficult."
"The interface needs some work. It is not very user-friendly."
"The high price of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The learning curve is a little steep at first."
"Other products have been using AI and cloud enhancements, but webMethods Integration Server is still lagging in that key area."
"webMethods Integration Server could improve on the version control. I'm not sure if Web Method has some kind of inbuilt integration with Bitbucket or GitHub or some kind of version control system. However, that's one area where they can improve."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Some of the licensing is "component-ized," which is confusing to new users/customers."
"The product is very expensive."
"I do see a lack of capabilities inside of the monetization area for them. They have a cloud infrastructure that is pay per use type of a thing. If you already use 1,000 transactions per se, then you can be charged and billed. I see room for improvement there for their side on that particular capability of the monetization."
"webMethods Integration Server is expensive, and there's no fixed price on it because it has a point pricing model. You can negotiate, which makes it interesting."
"This is not a cheap solution but, compared to other products such as those offered by IBM, the pricing is similar."
"The price of webMethods Integration Server isn't that high from an enterprise context, but open-source ESB solutions will always be the cheapest."
"The price is a little bit high, especially regarding their support."
"It is worth the cost."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
848,253 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

IBM, Oracle, MuleSoft, GoodData, Thomson Reuters, salesforce.com, Comcast, Active Network, SHOP.CA
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about CloverETL vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
848,253 professionals have used our research since 2012.