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

OpenText MBPM 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:
 

Scalability Issues

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
6.7
webMethods.io offers scalable solutions with easy cluster additions and CPU enhancements, though some challenges in connectors and on-premise setups exist.
 

Valuable Features

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
8.1
webMethods.io features efficient design, robust EDI, versatile integration, strong security, and flexible event-driven architecture for diverse applications.
 

Room For Improvement

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
4.7
webMethods.io needs improved support, scalability, affordability, UI, logging, monitoring, version control, AI integration, and simplified processes.
 

Stability Issues

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
7.2
webMethods.io is praised for its stability, reliability, and performance, with minimal downtime and effective long-term integration.
 

Customer Service

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
6.4
webMethods.io's customer service is responsive and helpful but occasionally slow for complex issues, with some variability in experiences.
 

Setup Cost

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
5.6
webMethods.io is seen as expensive but offers flexible licensing, making it suitable for larger businesses but costly for small firms.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText MBPM
Average Rating
7.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Management (BPM) (40th)
webMethods.io
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
91
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (4th), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (10th), API Management (10th), Cloud Data Integration (7th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)
 

Featured Reviews

Jaideep MS - PeerSpot reviewer
A solution offering good automation capabilities while needing to improve its support and documentation
I think the solution's support could do a better job. I rate the support somewhere around four and five out of ten. There is a hoard of people that they get in touch with while contacting them. So we've done some work with them in the past. I mean, we've been a support partner for a while. But apart from that, in terms of understanding the issues for a particular technology, I think there is a lack of people at their end. So they don't really have many people with them. And by the time we could get hold of the right person, especially for production issues, it's a little too late.
Derrick Brockel - PeerSpot reviewer
An integration platform that enables you to automate tasks by connecting apps and services
Follow best practices,engage in their professional services to help build your messaging system and to be PR have some PR emphasis and and blue Bluegreen deployment You could take half your your clusters out, upgrade them, and put them back in so you have a quick callback. And also patch quarterly, we got we got downbound. And and at that point, it's a little hard to get into the cycle when you're releasing software every every week, and you're trying to, go through an upgrade seven fifty servers, it's a little hard to get into the upgrade flow when when you're running that tight. I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
22%
Computer Software Company
17%
Government
15%
Insurance Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Retailer
7%
 

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 OpenText MBPM?
On a scale of one to ten, where one is cost-efficient, and ten is expensive, I rate the pricing somewhere between nine and ten since it is a costly solution.
What needs improvement with OpenText MBPM?
There are shortcomings in the solution's support and documentation part. However, support is a major area that needs improvement. In general, the technical documentation isn't available to start wi...
What is your primary use case for OpenText MBPM?
We use OpenText MBPM for business process management and vendor invoice management. There are a lot of other variations as well. So we don't just use it for automation. Primarily, we get informatio...
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.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Metastorm BPM
Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Kommunales Rechenzentrum Minden-Ravensburg/Lippe (KRZ), Hawksford Group, Gauteng Provincial Government Department of Economic Development, Deutsche Post DHL, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, London Underground, Great Clips, Fiat, Rompetrol, Gaston Memorial Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Bachmann, Alliance Healthcare
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), Informatica, Salesforce and others in Cloud Data Integration. Updated: November 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.