FME vs webMethods.io comparison

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

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

"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 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."

"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."

"A product with good API and EDI components."

"Ease of implementation and flexibility to hold the business logic are the most valuable features."

"The solution's ease-of-use is its most valuable feature, in which complex issues may be resolved."

"The tool helps us to streamline data integration. Its BPM is very strong and powerful. The solution helps us manage digital transformation."

"The development is very fast. If you know what you're doing, you can develop something very easily and very fast."

"I like the stability of the webMethods Integration Server."

"Most of the work in our organization can be more easily done using the tool."

"There's hardware, software and application integration, providing hosting flexibility."

"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."

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

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

"Improvements could be made to mapping presentations."

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

"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."

"There should be better logging, or a better dashboard, to allow you to see see the logs of the services."

"The deployment should be simplified."

"Rapid application development has to be considered, especially for UI, where user interference is crucial."

"Prices should be reduced, ideally by up to 30% for long-term customers like us."

"The products, at the moment, are new and there should perhaps be support for the older version of the protocols."

"I would like to have a dashboard where I can see all of the communication between components and the configuration."

"The product must add more compatible connectors."

"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."

"Initialy good pricing and good, if it comes to Enterprise license agreements."

"Most of my clients would like the price of the solution to be reduced."

"Pricing has to be negotiated with the local Software AG representative. SAG can always prepare an appropriate pricing model for every client."

"There is a license needed to use the webMethods Integration Server."

"I would like to see better pricing for the license."

"There are no hidden costs in addition to the standard licensing fees for webMethods. For corporate organizations, it's a very cheap or fairly priced product, but for growing or small businesses, it's quite expensive. These businesses would probably need to consider an enterprise services bus at some point. Thus, from a pricing point, it closes out non-cooperate businesses."

"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."

"I don’t have much idea about prices, but webMethods API Portal is not something cheaper."