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

IBM Sterling File Gateway vs Safe-T Secure Application Access 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

IBM Sterling File Gateway
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
Managed File Transfer (MFT) (1st)
Safe-T Secure Application A...
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN (42nd), Access Management (28th), ZTNA (26th)
 

Mindshare comparison

IBM Sterling File Gateway and Safe-T Secure Application Access aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. IBM Sterling File Gateway is designed for Managed File Transfer (MFT) and holds a mindshare of 10.6%, down 11.8% compared to last year.
Safe-T Secure Application Access, on the other hand, focuses on Enterprise Infrastructure VPN, holds 0.2% mindshare, up 0.1% since last year.
Managed File Transfer (MFT)
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN
 

Featured Reviews

Vinutha Gangadhara - PeerSpot reviewer
Ability to customize on top of the inbuilt processes, user-friendly and well-categorized
I’ve been part of this client for the last seven-plus years. It’s been close to 70 to 80 continuous improvements we have delivered. The priority ones which we always shortlist are the recurring incidents or recurring issues, which came in the initial phase of the year when we took this entire landscape under our maintenance. One such incident I can recollect is with respect to performance tuning. We committed to our users 99.99% and above as the availability metrics for Sterling Integrator. This has acted as a high-availability system, but we treat it as mission-critical. When it comes to the commitment we give to users, we have to ensure the system is kept most stable. So, the majority of the problem was in the communication channels. Whenever we enabled additional logging for the communication channel, the system used to have hiccups. So we worked with the vendor, stating that the visibility channel framework needs to be changed because the moment we enable more logging, it literally brings the system down, or the system doesn’t work as it should. They took our input and delivered a better framework in their next releases, which helped us after upgrading to have that stability intact. As the system grows, we ensure to have performance tuning triggered and optimize the business process wherever required. For example, by default, Sterling Integrator business process will have full logging enabled. We took care of those things. Not all business processes or workflows require full logging enabled. Only a few critical ones require every step logs. For the rest, we categorized and reduced the logging for those workflows. That actually helped us to increase the IO overall from ten milliseconds to six milliseconds. That was a good achievement. Apart from that, in terms of queues, how we maintain the queues, how we defined all file queues across the critical business process is one thing we felt was done better. The threads we assign for the priority queues and the business processes were configured to those priority queues, whatever is critical, so that it gets high priority to allow the threads to process. So that queue thread Sterling was taken under the performance tuning. Apart from that, I think some of the best practices which IBM recommends is what we usually run through every year. We just have the health check done through IBM, and we just ensure that all the best practice recommendations are added in the system.
it_user790473 - PeerSpot reviewer
The architecture is open to integration and development, making the product very flexible
We have a lot of in-house applications that we must integrate with a secure email system. We are a financial institute, so we must use it to send emails to our customers securely, because these emails contain sensitive customer data. The architecture of the product is very open to development, plug-ins and integration with in-house systems. We have been able integrate this system into our CRM and other operational systems. We didn't find that kind of flexibility in other secure email products. We have also been able to customize the user interface so it is branded and able to "talk" our marketing language. There is also a local Israeli vendor that helps us to improve the product, add the new features.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The biggest advantage of the tool is that it acts as a centralized solution for all the different protocols."
"What I like best is that the tool is very secure and reliable. We can send huge files, even up to hundreds of GB. The automation depends on the source - it can be through automated processes, manual transfers, shell scripting, or file scripting. Partners can schedule batches according to their needs."
"One feature that we appreciate or use for multiple customers is the routing channel."
"It is a very flexible platform, and this flexibility is the best part of it."
"It also has good error-handling methods."
"I like its ability to communicate in B2B scenarios."
"The solution's most valuable features include the partner management capability, which centralizes all configurations and connections."
"The most valuable aspect is that it has good functionality."
"If you want a very flexible system that you can easily integrate, and develop interfaces for it or plug-ins to other application environments, it's probably the most flexible"
"Safe-T is very good for users because it has plug-in for Outlook."
"the security level is very high. After we tested it and checked all the security aspects of the product, we found that it's highly secure."
"It's easy to use over the web. A user who is not in the office can use it and securely insert files."
 

Cons

"The solution's technical support is sometimes slow to understand the use cases, and the answers are not practical."
"Whenever we enabled additional logging for the communication channel, the system used to have hiccups."
"We have issues with the stability of this solution, like server-down issues."
"IBM is advising not to use the IT translate anymore but this is going to be an extra cost to the customer to use the alternative."
"The admin console needs some work."
"The automation part is somewhat limited."
"I faced issues during stress testing."
"IBM Sterling File Gateway depends on a database, which can be a drawback compared to platforms where system resources are entirely controlled internally."
"One important thing that we haven't found in this product is the ability to provide a read-only view for documents. Also, the ability for the customer to add annotations to these documents."
"The Outlook agent is not working well for installing it in the entire office."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution's pricing is reasonable."
"There are two types of customer licenses, an annual preview license, and an ELA-based license. I have found the solution is priced well. However, they need to review the pricing model because if you look at any other competitors, such as GlobalSCAPE, they do pricing based on the components and what you select. With this solution you have a monolithic application which you need to buy, there is no component level price discount."
"I do know that it's generally considered expensive, but it's also widely used across corporate organizations due to its robust protocol communication, secure file transfer capabilities, and integration features. Although there are other tools on the market, IBM Sterling File Gateway stands out for its unique options and cloud compatibility, which offers future benefits, particularly in avoiding data storage issues."
"It's reasonably priced at $800,000."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Managed File Transfer (MFT) solutions are best for your needs.
849,190 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
34%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Sterling File Gateway?
The cost-effectiveness of IBM Sterling File Gateway was a major factor in our decision to use it, in comparison to the higher costs associated with DataPower.
What needs improvement with IBM Sterling File Gateway?
The product itself wasn't very easy to comprehend. I required a lot of customization that didn’t meet my needs. I resolved more issues than IBM did. Sterling needs better testing for larger custome...
What is your primary use case for IBM Sterling File Gateway?
I utilized Sterling primarily for SFTP and Connect Direct. I have a complicated system involving ZOS mainframe, data power, and various complex rules as I was trying to replace everything with Ster...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
Safe-T SDA, Safe-T, Safe-T Software-Defined Access
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Government of Israel, eviCore Healthcore, Glen Imaging, Sarin, LBG, Rollomatic, Boegli-Gravures SA, Banque Heritage, Groupe Minoteries, Temenos, ZEK, RLM Finsbury, Harel Insurance, Meitav Dash
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Fortra, Progress Software and others in Managed File Transfer (MFT). Updated: April 2025.
849,190 professionals have used our research since 2012.