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
31st
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
3rd
Ranking in Cloud Data Integration
7th
Ranking in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
92
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (10th), API Management (10th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) category, the mindshare of OpenText Trading Grid is 1.4%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 8.4%, down from 9.1% 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."
"The most valuable feature of webMethods Integration Server is all the capabilities it provides. We leverage most of the features, that they have offered to us. Our vendor has made some additional features on top of the webMethods Integration Server and we use all the features together."
"The Software AG Designer has been great. It's very intuitive."
"webMethods Integration Server is an easy-to-use solution and does not require a lot of coding."
"Currently, we're using this solution for the integration server which helps us to integrate with the mainframe."
"There were no complexities involved in the setup phase...The product is able to meet my company's API protection needs."
"The product supports various types of digital documents, including XMLs and EDI."
"The development is very fast. If you know what you're doing, you can develop something very easily and very fast."
"Operationally, I consider the solution to be quite good."
 

Cons

"Technical support needs to be better."
"The solution has big instances when deployed under microservices or in a containerized platform. They need to improve that so that it is competitive with other integration solutions, like Redis and Kafka. Deployments under microservices with those solutions are much more lightweight, in the size of the runtime itself, compared with Software AG."
"I would like to have a dashboard where I can see all of the communication between components and the configuration."
"The deployment should be simplified."
"Business monitoring (BAM) needs improvement because the analytics and prediction module very often has performance problems."
"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 would be nice if they had a change management system offering. We built our own deployer application because the one built into webMethods couldn't enforce change management rules. Integration into a change management system, along with the version control system, would be a good offering; it's something that they're lacking."
"​Large file handling is pretty hard comparatively to other middleware tools."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Some who consider this solution often avoid it due to its high price."
"With our current licensing, it's very easy for us to scale. With our older licensing model, it was very hard. This is definitely something that I would highlight."
"The price of webMethods Integration Server isn't that high from an enterprise context, but open-source ESB solutions will always be the cheapest."
"Initialy good pricing and good, if it comes to Enterprise license agreements."
"Based on our team discussions and feedback, it is pretty costly because they charge us for each transmission."
"It is a cost-effective solution."
"It is expensive, but we reached a good agreement with the company. It is still a little bit expensive, but we got a better deal than the previous one."
"There is a license needed to use the webMethods Integration Server."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) solutions are best for your needs.
844,944 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Retailer
9%
Real Estate/Law Firm
7%
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

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, SAP and others in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS). Updated: March 2025.
844,944 professionals have used our research since 2012.