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

JBoss ESB vs webMethods.io 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

JBoss ESB
Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
13th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
webMethods.io
Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
92
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (10th), API Management (10th), Cloud Data Integration (7th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) category, the mindshare of JBoss ESB is 2.7%, up from 2.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 10.7%, up from 9.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
 

Featured Reviews

RS
Easy to use with flexible pricing, but needs more flexibility surrounding integrations
The EPA, from what I understand, lacks a lot of features and it doesn't really know how to interface with legacy systems or how to develop APIs for legacy systems. I'm not sure if it is possible, however, we would like to see features that allow for legacy systems so that they can continue to be developed and managed well. The solution should provide some more general studio features. We should be able to manipulate the platform in order to do some integrations on our own. There needs to be a bit more flexibility.
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution is very easy to use. I can download the trial version and just give it a go."
"I feel comfortable using this product with its ease of building interfaces for developers. This is a better integration tool for integrating with various applications like Oracle, Salesforce, mainframes, etc. It works fine in the integration of legacy software as well."
"What I like the most about the solution is that it comes with ready-made tools like handling security tokens and OAuth."
"The ease of mapping... is the single largest feature. It gives us the ability to craft anything. A lot of single-purpose technologies, like Mirth, are good for healthcare messages, but we use webMethods not only for healthcare messages but for other business-related purposes, like integrations to Salesforce or integrations to Office 365. It's multi-purpose nature is very strong."
"The synchronous and asynchronous messaging system the solution provides is very good."
"They are the building blocks of EAI in SAG products, and they offer a very good platform."
"It frankly fills the gap between IT and business by having approval and policy enforcement on each state and cycle of the asset from the moment it gets created until it is retired."
"What I found most valuable in webMethods Integration Server is that it's a strong ESB. It also has strong API modules and portals."
"The solution's ease-of-use is its most valuable feature, in which complex issues may be resolved."
 

Cons

"The EPA, from what I understand, lacks a lot of features and it doesn't really know how to interface with legacy systems or how to develop APIs for legacy systems."
"The configuring of the JWT token would be improved as it is a confusing process. We require more information on this part of the solution."
"Other products have been using AI and cloud enhancements, but webMethods Integration Server is still lagging in that key area."
"The logging capability has room for improvement. That way, we could keep a history of all the transactions. It would be helpful to be able to get to that without having to build a standalone solution to do so."
"Rules engine processes and BPM processes should be improved."
"The learning curve is a little steep at first."
"They should develop clear visibility for the onboarding."
"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."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The product is very expensive."
"It is a cost-effective solution."
"Some who consider this solution often avoid it due to its high price."
"The price is a little bit high, especially regarding their support."
"Based on our team discussions and feedback, it is pretty costly because they charge us for each transmission."
"The pricing and licensing costs for webMethods are very high, which is the only reason that we might switch to another product."
"Always plan five years ahead and don’t jeopardize the quality of your project by dropping items from the bill of materials."
"Sometimes we don't have a very clear idea what the licensing will entail at first, because it can be very customizable. On one hand, this can be a good thing, because it can be tailored to a specific customer's needs. But on the other hand it can also be an issue when some customer asks, "What's the cost?" and we can't yet give them an accurate answer."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions are best for your needs.
847,862 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
28%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Government
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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

Rancore, Sprint, ResMed, Brazil's Ministry of Health, ING Services Polska
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Salesforce, Oracle and others in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB). Updated: March 2025.
847,862 professionals have used our research since 2012.