FME vs webMethods.io comparison

"We make minor subtle changes to the workbenches to improve it. We can share the workbenches. We don't have to use GitHub or anything else."

"It has a very friendly user interface. You don't need to use a lot of code. For us that's the most important aspect about it. Also, it has a lot of connectors and few forms. It has a strong facial aspect. It can do a lot of facial analysis."

"From my reseller perspective, the best features in FME are the ease of operation and the fact that it works."

"The most valuable feature of FME is the graphical user interface. There is nothing better. It is very easy to debug because you can see all steps where there are failures. Overall the software is easy to optimize a process."

"FME is spatially aware and understands how to deal with the conversion of spatial objects and their attributes."

"All spatial features are unrivaled, and the possibility to execute them based on a scheduled trigger, manual, e-mail, Websocket, tweet, file/directory change or virtually any trigger is most valuable."

"It has standard plug-ins available for different data sources."

"Operationally, I consider the solution to be quite good."

"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 MFT component of webMethods, for example, is easy to set up and convenient to use. It handles files very efficiently and it is easy to automate tasks with complex schedules. Monitoring is centralized to MWS which can be used to monitor other products as well (Trading Networks, BPM, MFT, etc.)"

"The product is very stable."

"With webMethods, the creation of servers and the utilization of Trading Networks facilitate B2B integration. It resolves any related issues effectively."

"We have found the pricing of the solution to be fair."

"It is good for communicating between the systems and for publishing and subscribing. We can easily retrieve data. It is good in terms of troubleshooting and other things."

"webMethods API Portal is overall very valuable. It is now a comprehensive API catalogue that serves various purposes, including API assessment and evaluation."

"We are looking at the possibility of using Glue instead of FME, using the native AWS product."

"Improvements could be made to mapping presentations."

"To get a higher rating, it would have to improve the price and the associated scalability. These are the main issues."

"FME's price needs improvement for the African market."

"The one thing that always appears in the community is the ability to make really easy loops to loop through data efficiently. That needs to be added at some point."

"FME can improve the geographical transformation. I've had some problems with the geographical transformations, but it's probably mostly because I'm not the most skilled geographer in-house. The solution requires some in-depth knowledge to perform some functions."

"t doesn't represent OOP very well, just a method and proprietary interface called IData."

"I am not satisfied with the solution because it takes too much effort to migrate and add new information. The migration could be easier."

"I'd like to see the admin portal for managing the integration server go up a level, to have more capabilities and to be given a more modern web interface."

"Understanding the overall architecture is difficult."

"In terms of scale, I would give it a four out of 10."

"The market webMethods Integration Server falls under is a very crowded market, so for the product to stand out, Software AG would need to get traction in the open source community by releasing a new version or a base version and open source it, so people can create new custom components and add it to the portfolio."

"webMethods Integration Server needs to add more adapters."

"The orchestration is not as good as it should be."

"The product's price is reasonable."

"FME Server used to cost £10,000; now it can cost over £100,000."

"We used the standard licensing for our use of FME. The cost was approximately €15,000 annually. We always welcome less expensive solutions, if the solution could be less expensive it would be helpful."

"This is an expensive product and we may replace it with something more reasonably priced."

"The price is high and I give it a five out of ten."

"Some who consider this solution often avoid it due to its high price."

"The pricing and licensing costs for webMethods are very high, which is the only reason that we might switch to another product."

"I signed a three-year deal with them. It is a yearly locked-in price for the next three years."

"With our current licensing, it's very easy for us to scale. With our older licensing model, it was very hard. This is definitely something that I would highlight."

"Based on our team discussions and feedback, it is pretty costly because they charge us for each transmission."

"It is an expensive tool. I rate the product price a nine out of ten, where ten means it is very expensive."