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

Rivery 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

Rivery
Ranking in Cloud Data Integration
19th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Data Integration (34th), Migration Tools (4th), Cloud Migration (13th)
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 Rivery is 0.6%, up from 0.5% 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

reviewer2335923 - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides users with an initial setup phase, which is fairly simple to manage
I don't know what could be improved in terms of what my company was used to previously or after moving over to Rivery. I have not had much experience with platforms other than Rivery. For me, Rivalry was a way to step up from what we used. To be honest, I am not really sure what improvements could be made in Rivery. Pricing is a little steep for smaller organizations, I would say. The product's pricing model could be a little bit better. I am not aware if there are additional packages for smaller organizations, but if there are no packages available, then maybe that would be a good way to introduce something new in the tool.
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

"Connects to many APIs in the market and new ones are being added all the time."
"The solution's most valuable features are that it is quick to connect and simple to use."
"The core product can be used not only for automatic file transfers between applications, but also as an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)."
"It is a very stable product."
"The developer portal is a valuable feature."
"The tool is very powerful and user-friendly."
"The tool supports gRPC."
"With webMethods, the creation of servers and the utilization of Trading Networks facilitate B2B integration. It resolves any related issues effectively."
"A product with good API and EDI components."
"From a user perspective, the feature which I like the most about Integration Server is its designer."
 

Cons

"Pricing is a little steep for smaller organizations, I would say. The product's pricing model could be a little bit better."
"Lineage and an impact analysis or logic dependency are lacking."
"This product has too many gaps. You find them after update installations. This should be covered by automatic testing."
"It is difficult to maintain."
"Business monitoring (BAM) needs improvement because the analytics and prediction module very often has performance problems."
"The solution should include REST API calls."
"As webMethods Integration Server is expensive, that's its area for improvement."
"Technical support is an area where they can improve."
"This product is for larger companies. Compared to TIBCO I think webMethods is better in terms of ease of use and support."
"Rapid application development has to be considered, especially for UI, where user interference is crucial."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the tool's price as six out of ten if I consider the lowest price to be one and the highest price to be ten."
"The price is high and I give it a five out of ten."
"The product is very expensive."
"The solution's development license is free for three to six months. We have to pay for other things."
"I do think webMethods is coming under increasing pressure when it comes to their price-to-feature value proposition. It's probably the single biggest strategic risk they have. They're very expensive in their industry. They've been raising the price recently, especially when compared with their competitors."
"Pricing has to be negotiated with the local Software AG representative. SAG can always prepare an appropriate pricing model for every client."
"This is an expensive product and we may replace it with something more reasonably priced."
"Some of the licensing is "component-ized," which is confusing to new users/customers."
"webMethods.io Integration's pricing is high and has yearly subscription costs."
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
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
10%
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

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Rivery?
The tool's price can be a little steep for a small organization. I rate the tool's price as six out of ten if I consider the lowest price to be one and the highest price to be ten.
What needs improvement with Rivery?
I don't know what could be improved in terms of what my company was used to previously or after moving over to Rivery. I have not had much experience with platforms other than Rivery. For me, Rival...
What is your primary use case for Rivery?
My company has started to use the Rivery extract data from Hive. It is like a project management sort of program, and we started to use Rivery to get the data from there over into Mavenlink, so we ...
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

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about Rivery vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.