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

Palantir Foundry vs webMethods.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 3, 2024

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

Palantir Foundry
Ranking in Cloud Data Integration
14th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
Data Integration (19th), IT Operations Analytics (9th), Supply Chain Analytics (1st), Data Migration Appliances (4th), Data Management Platforms (DMP) (2nd), Data and Analytics Service Providers (1st)
webMethods.io
Ranking in Cloud Data Integration
7th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
92
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (3rd), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (10th), API Management (10th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Cloud Data Integration category, the mindshare of Palantir Foundry is 4.9%, up from 3.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 4.4%, up from 3.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Data Integration
 

Featured Reviews

Rama Subba Reddy Thavva - PeerSpot reviewer
A low-code/no-code platform with a user-friendly UI
We couldn't implement or use some of the latest functionalities, like Spark. Palantir Foundry is scalable, but it is costly compared to other cloud providers. The solution is more suitable for small and medium businesses. It might be difficult for large enterprises. I rate the solution’s scalability a seven out of ten.
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 data lineage is great."
"The solution offers very good end-to-end capabilities."
"I rate Palantir Foundry a ten out of ten."
"I like the data onboarding to Palantir Foundry and ETL creation."
"The ease of use is my favorite feature. We're able to build different models and projects or combine different projects to build one use case."
"The solution provides an end-to-end integrated tech stack that takes care of all utility/infrastructure topics for you."
"It's scalable."
"The security is also excellent. It's highly granular, so the admins have a high degree of control, and there are many levels of security. That worked well. You won't have an EDC unless you put everything onto the platform because it is its own isolated thing."
"In the API gateway, there is a new feature that allows us to filter logs within a payload. This has been a useful feature."
"It's a good tool, and it has a stable messaging broker."
"There were no complexities involved in the setup phase...The product is able to meet my company's API protection needs."
"I feel comfortable using this product with its ease of building interfaces for developers. This is a better integration tool for integrating with various applications like Oracle, Salesforce, mainframes, etc. It works fine in the integration of legacy software as well."
"The tool helps us to streamline data integration. Its BPM is very strong and powerful. The solution helps us manage digital transformation."
"We needed a tool that was able to orchestrate and help us configure our APIs so that we could maintain and see the heartbeat, traffic, trends, etc."
"The core product can be used not only for automatic file transfers between applications, but also as an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)."
"The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is the built-in monitoring, auditing, RETS, and SOAP services."
 

Cons

"The data lineage was challenging. It's hard to track data from the sources as it moves through stages. Informatica EDC can easily capture and report it because it talks to the metadata. This is generated across those various staging points."
"If you want to create new models on specific data sets, computing that is quite costly."
"The solution could use more online documentation for new users."
"There is not a wide user base for the solution's online documentation so it is sometimes difficult to find answers."
"Some error messages can be very cryptic."
"They do not have a data center in Europe, and we have lots of personally identifiable information in our dataset that needs to be hosted by a third-party data center like Amazon or Microsoft Azure."
"Cost of this solution is quite high."
"It would be helpful to build applications based on Azure functions or web apps in Palantir Foundry."
"The high price of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"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 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."
"It is difficult to maintain."
"The UI for the admin console is very old. It hasn't been updated for years and is pretty much the same one that we started with. This is something that could be refreshed and made more modern."
"The licensing cost is high compared to other options."
"In terms of improvements, maybe on the API monetization side, having users able to create separate consumption plans and throttle all those consumption plans towards the run time could be better."
"The solution should include REST API calls."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution’s pricing is high."
"It's expensive."
"Palantir Foundry is an expensive solution."
"Palantir Foundry has different pricing models that can be negotiated."
"The pricing and licensing costs for webMethods are very high, which is the only reason that we might switch to another product."
"The price of webMethods Integration Server isn't that high from an enterprise context, but open-source ESB solutions will always be the cheapest."
"The price is high and I give it a five out of ten."
"Initialy good pricing and good, if it comes to Enterprise license agreements."
"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."
"Pricing is the number-one downfall. It's too expensive. They could make more money by dropping the price in half and getting more customers. It's the best product there is, but it's too expensive."
"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."
"Pricing has to be negotiated with the local Software AG representative. SAG can always prepare an appropriate pricing model for every client."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Palantir Foundry?
Palantir Foundry is a robust platform that has really strong plugin connectors and provides features for real-time integration.
What needs improvement with Palantir Foundry?
The solution’s data security could be improved. We cannot use many Python packages with the solution. We were able to use only a few compatible Python packages.
What is your primary use case for Palantir Foundry?
Our use cases are mostly related to data analytics. We are building some dashboards and ETL pipelines on the Palantir side. Palantir Foundry is a low-code/no-code platform with a user-friendly UI. ...
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

No data available
Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Merck KGaA, Airbus, Ferrari,United States Intelligence Community, United States Department of Defense
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about Palantir Foundry vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.