FME vs webMethods.io comparison

"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."

"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."

"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."

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

"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."

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

"Best feature is Insight for monitoring, and as a debugging tool. It has saved us a lot of time during crisis situations."

"The messaging part is the most valuable feature."

"High throughput and excellent scalability."

"It's a good tool, and it has a stable messaging broker."

"The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is its reliability. It has a lot of great documentation from the service providers. Additionally, it is easy to use."

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

"The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is the built-in monitoring, auditing, RETS, and SOAP services."

"webMethods platform is used to build an EAI platform, enabling communication between many internal systems and third-party operators."

"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 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."

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

"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."

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

"Version control is not very easy. The packages and the integration server are on Eclipse IDE, but you can't compare the code from the IDE. For example, if you are working on Java code, doing version control and deployment for a quick comparison between the code isn't easy. Some tools or plug-ins are there, such as CrossVista, and you can also play with an SVN server where you have to place your package, and from there, you can check, but you have to do that as a separate exercise. You can't do it from the IDE or webMethods server. You can't just right-click and upload your service."

"It is difficult to maintain."

"​Large file handling is pretty hard comparatively to other middleware tools."

"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."

"With respect to the API gateway, the runtime component, the stability after a new release is something that can be improved."

"This product has too many gaps. You find them after update installations. This should be covered by automatic testing."

"webMethods.io lacks advanced monitoring and analytics capabilities, so my customers need to use something additional."

"The Software AG Designer could be more memory-efficient or CPU-efficient so that we can use it with middle-spec hardware."

"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."

"The product's price is reasonable."

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

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

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

"This is not a cheap solution but, compared to other products such as those offered by IBM, the pricing is similar."

"The product is 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."

"The pricing is a yearly license."

"Some of the licensing is "component-ized," which is confusing to new users/customers."

"The solution’s pricing is too high."