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

Oracle Integration Cloud Service vs webMethods.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 17, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
8.3
Oracle Integration Cloud Service provides substantial ROI through autonomous services that reduce development time and operational overhead.
Sentiment score
7.1
Automating tasks reduced expenses, downtime, and labor needs, with significant time savings and positive returns outperforming competitors.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
5.5
Oracle Integration Cloud Service's support has mixed reviews, noting delays, inconsistencies, and expertise issues, but high-priority issues get fast assistance.
Sentiment score
6.6
webMethods.io's customer service is responsive and helpful but occasionally slow for complex issues, with some variability in experiences.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.8
Oracle Integration Cloud Service scales well and is versatile, but has data size limitations and occasional performance issues.
Sentiment score
7.2
webMethods.io offers scalable solutions with easy cluster additions and CPU enhancements, though some challenges in connectors and on-premise setups exist.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.1
Oracle Integration Cloud Service is stable and reliable, with occasional downtime and performance issues, rated 7-10 out of 10.
Sentiment score
7.7
webMethods.io is praised for its stability, reliability, and performance, with minimal downtime and effective long-term integration.
 

Room For Improvement

Oracle Integration Cloud Service needs better AI integration, enhanced tools, reduced costs, improved support, comprehensive documentation, and flexible pricing.
webMethods.io needs improved support, scalability, affordability, UI, logging, monitoring, version control, AI integration, and simplified processes.
 

Setup Cost

Oracle Integration Cloud Service offers predictable pricing with various models and discounts, but costs can increase with extensive customization.
webMethods.io is seen as expensive but offers flexible licensing, making it suitable for larger businesses but costly for small firms.
 

Valuable Features

Oracle Integration Cloud Service offers scalable, user-friendly integration with robust error handling, pre-built APIs, and low-code capabilities for ease of use.
webMethods.io features efficient design, robust EDI, versatile integration, strong security, and flexible event-driven architecture for diverse applications.
 

Categories and Ranking

Oracle Integration Cloud Se...
Ranking in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
4th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
36
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
webMethods.io
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
Business-to-Business Middleware (4th), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (10th), API Management (9th), Cloud Data Integration (8th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) category, the mindshare of Oracle Integration Cloud Service is 9.2%, down from 11.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 9.7%, up from 8.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
 

Featured Reviews

Arun Andavar Nagarajan - PeerSpot reviewer
Integrates well , reasonably priced, feature-rich, and has helpful technical support
In terms of improvement, debugging and error handling, Oracle can be much more user-friendly on this, because clients must provide a much more error handling framework, which is a monitoring framework, that is much better. The current one has some level of monitoring, but then there are retrying mechanisms, automatically retrying mechanisms and error recovery mechanisms. Those things need to be greatly improved; they have something, but it is very basic. The error retrying mechanism could be improved. If an error occurs, it can be retried automatically, it would be helpful. Resilience can be enhanced. The migration flow has to improve. They have some kind of agent connecting with the on-premise systems. We need to simplify the process of connecting with non-cloud applications. If you have to connect to some servers from this cloud to non-cloud, that is a bit of a hassle. They now have something called an agent for those, but they can simplify it, and the error frameworks can be implemented much more effectively.
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.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) solutions are best for your needs.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
44%
Computer Software Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What's the difference between Oracle Integration Cloud Service and Oracle Data Integrator (ODI)?
Oracle Integration Cloud Service has a fairly easy initial setup, and Oracle offers initial support and guidance for those who might find the setup to be challenging. There are complications that c...
What do you like most about Oracle Integration Cloud Service?
Oracle Integration Cloud Service offers a lot of adaptors.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Oracle Integration Cloud Service?
It is not really a high price for the value it gives. However, when you start doing the customization, it’s a bit expensive because I need to start provisioning other services before deployment. So...
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

Oracle ICS
Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Calix, Avaya, Land Lakes, Leader, PWC, Vale
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about Oracle Integration Cloud Service vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.