OpenESB vs webMethods.io comparison

"OpenESB pushes the organization to clearly define service boundaries and interfaces. So it motives the business and the development teams to clearly define their business services and processes they want to implement. OpenESB supports fine and coarse-grain granularity for the services and supports top-down and bottom-up approaches for the services, processes definition, and composition."

"The process-oriented solution allows you to define choreography and orchestration."

"One of the most valuable features is being able to implement business processes while keeping track of the design from BPMN to a BPEL Implementation."

"The core is very stable."

"I like the tool's scalability."

"This solution has given us a competitive advantage because we have better automation and insight."

"The stability is good."

"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."

"Given that you have one integration API in place, it takes very minimal effort to scale it to any other application that might want to use the same. Its flow-based development environment is a breeze and makes it really easy to re-use most of the existing components and build up a new API."

"One valuable feature is that it is event-driven, so when new data is available on the source it can be quickly processed and displayed. Integration is definitely another useful feature, and B2B is one area where webMethods has its own unique thing going, whereby we can do monitoring of transactions, monitoring of client onboarding, and so on."

"I would say the core Web-based integrations work the best. They are the most efficient and robust implementations one can do with webMethods."

"Currently, we're using this solution for the integration server which helps us to integrate with the mainframe."

"Regarding its management, a web console being able to synchronize distributed instances would be great."

"The documentation needs to be better."

"The documentation of the product must be improved. It could be tricky to find the right documentation on a topic since the documentation is spread in many places. I advise the new joiner to contact the community to get entry points and additional documentation. Tutorial and Video must be present to take up the product."

"Cloud deployment is weak and needs to be improved."

"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."

"Some of the things that we use cannot be done in this solution. For these things, we have to either use a Java service or a util service. There is no predefined or existing service that we can use. So, we have to work on the util service and write on top of it. Its price can also be better. It is pretty costly because they charge us for each transmission."

"A while ago, they were hacked, and it took them a very long time to open their website again in order to download any service packs or any features. I don't know what they could do differently. I know that they were vulnerable, and there was some downtime, but because they were down, we were unable to download any potential service packs."

"The product needs to be improved in a few ways. First, they need to stabilize the components of the whole platform across versions. Also, they should stop replacing old components with brand new ones and, rather, improve by evolution."

"I am not satisfied with the solution because it takes too much effort to migrate and add new information. The migration could be easier."

"The patching of infrastructure is not very smooth and improved authentication should be added in the next feature."

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

"Business monitoring (BAM) needs improvement because the analytics and prediction module very often has performance problems."

"There are two versions. The first is the community version, which is free and contains the last part of the feature, but if you want to get the Enterprise version, you'll have to pay €60,000 which covers support and two instances on production."

"The Community Edition is a full product you can use in production, it does not have limitations like other alternatives."

"The cost for the prediction instrument is high because it is charged per instances based on prediction, but the rest of the solution is free."

"Its cost depends on the use cases."

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

"The pricing and licensing costs for webMethods are very high, which is the only reason that we might switch to another product."

"Currently, the licensing solution for this product is pretty straightforward. The way that Software AG has moved in their licensing agreements is very understandable. It is very easy for you to see where things land. Like most vendors today, they are transaction based. Therefore, just having a good understanding of how many transactions that you are doing a year would be very wise. Luckily, there are opportunities to work with the vendor to get a good understanding of how many transactions you have and what is the right limit for you to fall under."

"It's a good deal for the money that we pay."

"The solution’s pricing is too high."

"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."

"webMethods Integration Server is expensive, and there's no fixed price on it because it has a point pricing model. You can negotiate, which makes it interesting."