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

OpenText Trading Grid 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

OpenText Trading Grid
Ranking in Business-to-Business Middleware
12th
Ranking in Cloud Data Integration
33rd
Ranking in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
19th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
webMethods.io
Ranking in Business-to-Business Middleware
4th
Ranking in Cloud Data Integration
8th
Ranking in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
91
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (10th), API Management (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) category, the mindshare of OpenText Trading Grid is 1.2%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 9.0%, up from 8.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
 

Featured Reviews

VARUNKUMAR - PeerSpot reviewer
Industry-leading, easy to implement, and has good mapping specification guidelines
The good thing about OpenText is that we have the mapping specification guideline available, which is not there in a solution like SEEBURGER. Whenever you want to take a decision to move away from OpenText, you have already documented your mapping and what your mapping looks like. So you go to the next provider, provide them with that mapping specification, and it'll be very easy for them to develop a new map instead of just taking the data - input data, output data - and then looking for how the data is getting transformed. So you have the mapping spec level which is a very good feature of OpenText, which we do not have in SEEBURGER. It's very hard to move from SEEBURGER. The solution is easy to implement. It's stable and reliable. They are the industry leaders in the integration space.
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 easy to implement."
"They are the building blocks of EAI in SAG products, and they offer a very good platform."
"The product supports various types of digital documents, including XMLs and EDI."
"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."
"It is a bundled product stack for A2A and B2B usage. It is one of the best products which I have used during my integration career."
"Oracle's self-service capabilities, of which we make extensive use, is the most valuable feature."
"The product is very stable."
"In the API gateway, there is a new feature that allows us to filter logs within a payload. This has been a useful feature."
"When it comes to the user interface, I'm already really used to it. I cannot say anything against it. For me, it's easy to use."
 

Cons

"Technical support needs to be better."
"Perhaps in the area of Microservices, where I think Trading Networks could benefit from some improvements."
"There should be better logging, or a better dashboard, to allow you to see see the logs of the services."
"Scalability and connectors to different cloud applications is lacking."
"We need more dashboards and reporting engines that can provide detailed information for management. In short, we need better analytics."
"We'd like for them to open up to a more cloud-based solution that could offer more flexibility and maybe a better rules engine or more integration with rules engines."
"It is difficult to maintain."
"On the monitoring side of things, the UI for monitoring could be improved. It's a bit cumbersome to work with."
"For code version control, you need to use some external software."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"This is an expensive product and we may replace it with something more reasonably priced."
"Initialy good pricing and good, if it comes to Enterprise license agreements."
"There is a license needed to use the webMethods Integration Server."
"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."
"The price is a little bit high, especially regarding their support."
"It's a good deal for the money that we pay."
"webMethods.io is expensive. We have multiple components, and you need to pay for each of them."
"Always plan five years ahead and don’t jeopardize the quality of your project by dropping items from the bill of materials."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) solutions are best for your needs.
832,138 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
13%
Retailer
10%
Energy/Utilities Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
13%
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

Trading Grid, GXS Trading Grid
Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Autoliv, Hella, Hutchinson, Michelin
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Salesforce, Oracle and others in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS). Updated: January 2025.
832,138 professionals have used our research since 2012.