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

IBM Sterling File Gateway vs webMethods.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
7.7
IBM Sterling File Gateway offers cost-effective, reliable file management for retail operations with user-friendly features and strong support.
Sentiment score
7.1
webMethods.io delivers rapid ROI through cost savings, reduced downtime, and increased productivity, depending on specific implementations.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
5.9
IBM Sterling File Gateway's support is responsive and reliable, despite occasional delays and complexity complaints; 24/7 availability is valued.
Sentiment score
6.6
webMethods.io's customer service is praised for responsiveness, but users note occasional delays and desire improved technical support communication.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
6.8
IBM Sterling File Gateway offers scalable, configurable solutions supporting large volumes and protocols, despite potential licensing and configuration constraints.
Sentiment score
7.2
webMethods.io is praised for its scalability in cloud and on-premises environments, with some licensing constraints noted.
Vertically, scalability is fine, however, I have not expanded horizontally with the product yet.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.6
IBM Sterling File Gateway is generally stable, but can face performance issues with upgrades, high data volumes, and resource limits.
Sentiment score
7.6
webMethods.io is generally stable and reliable, with minor issues in specific modules and cloud version maturity needed.
There are some issues like the tool hanging or the need for additional jars when exposing web services.
 

Room For Improvement

IBM Sterling File Gateway needs user interface enhancements, better stability, more storage support, and improved user management and licensing.
webMethods.io needs clearer documentation, better scalability, intuitive interfaces, and improved integration and cost-effectiveness for enhanced user experience.
A special discount of at least 50% for old customers would allow us to expand our services and request more resources.
 

Setup Cost

IBM Sterling File Gateway offers secure file transfers, considered costly yet valuable, with varied pricing based on specifications.
Enterprise buyers find webMethods.io costly but valuable, offering flexibility and comprehensive solutions, particularly beneficial for large-scale enterprises.
 

Valuable Features

IBM Sterling File Gateway provides secure, adaptable file transfers with strong encryption, protocol support, user-friendly interface, and centralized management.
webMethods.io excels in seamless integration, user-friendliness, robust security, and scalability, offering efficient tools and reliable management for diverse needs.
It facilitates the exposure of around 235 services through our platform to feed various government entities across the entire country.
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM Sterling File Gateway
Ranking in Managed File Transfer (MFT)
1st
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
webMethods.io
Ranking in Managed File Transfer (MFT)
10th
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), API Management (10th), Cloud Data Integration (7th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Managed File Transfer (MFT) category, the mindshare of IBM Sterling File Gateway is 10.6%, down from 11.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 2.0%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Managed File Transfer (MFT)
 

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.
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.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Managed File Transfer (MFT) solutions are best for your needs.
846,617 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%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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...
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.
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Sterling File Gateway vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.