SAS Access vs webMethods.io comparison

"The most valuable feature is you have native access to the external databases."

"The most valuable part of SAS/ACCESS is what it is made for: connecting to remote systems that are not part of your physical SAS environment."

"The most valuable aspect of the solution is the ease of access to the data in those databases."

"I would say the core Web-based integrations work the best. They are the most efficient and robust implementations one can do with webMethods."

"One of the most important features is that it gives you the possibility to do low-level integration. It provides a lot of features out of the box, and over the years, it has matured so much that any problem that is there in the market can be solved with this product. We can meet any requirements through customizations, transformations, or the logic that needs to be put in. Some of the other products struggle in this aspect. They cannot do things in a certain way, or they have a product limitation, whereas, with webMethods, I have never faced this kind of problem."

"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."

"It integrates well with various servers."

"The most valuable feature is stability."

"It's very flexible and a good platform to use."

"The ease of mapping... is the single largest feature. It gives us the ability to craft anything. A lot of single-purpose technologies, like Mirth, are good for healthcare messages, but we use webMethods not only for healthcare messages but for other business-related purposes, like integrations to Salesforce or integrations to Office 365. It's multi-purpose nature is very strong."

"​Broker and UM are the best features."

"The solution can provide access to the newer databases that come out sooner."

"I can't really recall any missing feature or general improvement that is needed. We don't really add too many new kinds of databases and therefore our needs are already met."

"The pricing model needs to be reconsidered and adjusted."

"Business monitoring (BAM) needs improvement because the analytics and prediction module very often has performance problems."

"This product is for larger companies. Compared to TIBCO I think webMethods is better in terms of ease of use and support."

"One area that needs improvement is the version upgrade process. Many customers I've worked with encounter challenges when transitioning from their current version, such as x or 9, to a newer version. The process is not smooth, and they must shift their entire website."

"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."

"A potential drawback of webMethods.io API is its adaptability to legacy systems, which can vary in compatibility."

"t doesn't represent OOP very well, just a method and proprietary interface called IData."

"Upgrades are complex. They typically take about five months from start to finish. There are many packages that plug into webMethods Integration Server, which is the central point for a vast majority of the transactions at my organization. Anytime we are upgrading that, there are complexities within each component that we must understand. That makes any upgrade very cumbersome and complicated. That has been my experience at this company. Because there are many different business units that we are touching, there are so many different components that we are touching. The amount of READMEs that you have to go through takes some time."

"This is a great solution and the vendor could improve the marketing of the solution to be able to reach more clients."

"The pricing model is complex and is based on modular packages as well as the size of the applicable environment."

"The solution's pricing and licensing are expensive."

"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."

"The price is high and I give it a five out of ten."

"I would like to see better pricing for the license."

"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."

"Some who consider this solution often avoid it due to its high price."

"It is an expensive tool. I rate the product price a nine out of ten, where ten means it is very expensive."

"Sometimes we don't have a very clear idea what the licensing will entail at first, because it can be very customizable. On one hand, this can be a good thing, because it can be tailored to a specific customer's needs. But on the other hand it can also be an issue when some customer asks, "What's the cost?" and we can't yet give them an accurate answer."