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

SAP Process Orchestration 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

SAP Process Orchestration
Ranking in Business-to-Business Middleware
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
32
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
webMethods.io
Ranking in Business-to-Business Middleware
4th
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), Cloud Data Integration (8th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)
 

Featured Reviews

Vishal Khare - PeerSpot reviewer
A tool that can be useful for small integrations and large integrations
It is a pretty scalable solution. You can use the tool for small integrations and large integrations. From a use case perspective, all the people, around 3,000 employees, use the tool in my organization since some form of the product's integration capabilities are used in the company and have their own requirements of interfaces. There are no plans to increase the use of the solution in my company. My company has a couple of managers and developers to do the coding and mapping in SAP PI/PO. If I talk about the APAC region, I have almost eight to ten people who take care of the tool's complete technical area.
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 performance of data processing has increased."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable features of SAP Process Orchestration are the standard APIs that we can use."
"The product has good technical support but you usually will not need it because it is quite stable."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The initial setup is easy...The solution gets automatically connected. The deployment takes six months. I rate its setup phase a ten out of ten."
"The monitoring tools are the most valuable feature."
"Process Orchestration fulfils the need for middleware to mediate types of connectivity."
"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 cloud version of the solution is very easy to set up."
"Currently, we're using this solution for the integration server which helps us to integrate with the mainframe."
"One [of the most valuable features] is the webMethods Designer. That helps our developers develop on their own. It's very intuitive for design. It helps our developers to speed the development of services for the integrations."
"How simple it is to create new solutions."
"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."
"Segregation of deployment for the environments is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"Operationally, I consider the solution to be quite good."
 

Cons

"This is an on-premise platform and one area they can improve on is having the ability to work with SaaS solutions."
"I feel that support is an area that needs improvement. They need to improve the response time and address the customer's issues as soon as possible."
"The solution could improve by making it more user-friendly by limiting the code required. We have to add some code in some cases where we need complex logic or some other functions. If this was able to be done in a more simplified manner then it would save a lot of effort and time."
"The monitoring governance offered by SAP is too technical and needs to be geared more toward business users."
"It would be beneficial to enhance the ease of implementing new projects and improve overall stability in our implementations."
"There are two main areas for improvement: performance and cost."
"The solution could be more scalable."
"It's very difficult to find errors in a simple way."
"As webMethods Integration Server is expensive, that's its area for improvement."
"The logging capability has room for improvement. That way, we could keep a history of all the transactions. It would be helpful to be able to get to that without having to build a standalone solution to do so."
"This product has too many gaps. You find them after update installations. This should be covered by automatic testing."
"Understanding the overall architecture is difficult."
"The on-premises setup can be difficult."
"The solution should include REST API calls."
"I'd like to see the admin portal for managing the integration server go up a level, to have more capabilities and to be given a more modern web interface."
"The deployment should be simplified."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's not an expensive solution."
"Normally, you will have to choose CPU-based licensing...I rate the tool price a five out of ten."
"The pricing depends on what type of client you are with SAP and the contract you have. There is a licensing cost that needs to be paid."
"The license is a one-time payment, and additional costs are only incurred on the infrastructure side since it's an on-premise solution."
"The product is not a low-priced solution, but I can say that it is competitively priced in the market."
"My company deals with different pricing models of the product, according to which we don't pay for the solution directly, but we do pay for the maintenance part."
"Looking at market conditions, vendors nowadays are giving products at very low price levels. However, SAP Process Orchestration have not yet reduced their prices. The prices could be reduced a lot to stay competitive."
"We subscribe to annual licenses, and the competitive license cost is reasonable."
"Currently, the licensing solution for this product is pretty straightforward. The way that Software AG has moved in their licensing agreements is very understandable. It is very easy for you to see where things land. Like most vendors today, they are transaction based. Therefore, just having a good understanding of how many transactions that you are doing a year would be very wise. Luckily, there are opportunities to work with the vendor to get a good understanding of how many transactions you have and what is the right limit for you to fall under."
"It's a good deal for the money that we pay."
"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."
"The pricing and licensing costs for webMethods are very high, which is the only reason that we might switch to another product."
"It is a cost-effective solution."
"The solution's development license is free for three to six months. We have to pay for other things."
"It is worth the cost."
"The product is expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business-to-Business Middleware solutions are best for your needs.
831,020 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
17%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
13%
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 SAP Process Orchestration?
It provides essential features such as continuous monitoring of all interfaces are crucial for our needs.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SAP Process Orchestration?
The main concern is the cost. If additional help is needed due to lack of skill, we have to pay for SAP support.
What needs improvement with SAP Process Orchestration?
There are two main areas for improvement: performance and cost. The cost is quite high, and if it were reduced, it might also improve the performance, potentially allowing us to access a more effic...
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

SAP NetWeaver Process Integration, NetWeaver Process Integration
Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Lenovo, Dansk Supermarked A/S, Ego Pharmaceuticals Pty. Ltd, Kaeser Kompressoren
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about SAP Process Orchestration vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
831,020 professionals have used our research since 2012.