StreamSets vs webMethods.io comparison

"In StreamSets, everything is in one place."

"The most valuable would be the GUI platform that I saw. I first saw it at a special session that StreamSets provided towards the end of the summer. I saw the way you set it up and how you have different processes going on with your data. The design experience seemed to be pretty straightforward to me in terms of how you drag and drop these nodes and connect them with arrows."

"The Ease of configuration for pipes is amazing. It has a lot of connectors. Mainly, we can do everything with the data in the pipe. I really like the graphical interface too"

"Also, the intuitive canvas for designing all the streams in the pipeline, along with the simplicity of the entire product are very big pluses for me. The software is very simple and straightforward. That is something that is needed right now."

"For me, the most valuable features in StreamSets have to be the Data Collector and Control Hub, but especially the Data Collector. That feature is very elegant and seamlessly works with numerous source systems."

"The best thing about StreamSets is its plugins, which are very useful and work well with almost every data source. It's also easy to use, especially if you're comfortable with SQL. You can customize it to do what you need. Many other tools have started to use features similar to those introduced by StreamSets, like automated workflows that are easy to set up."

"It is really easy to set up and the interface is easy to use."

"The UI is user-friendly, it doesn't require any technical know-how and we can navigate to social media or use it more easily."

"There's hardware, software and application integration, providing hosting flexibility."

"There were no complexities involved in the setup phase...The product is able to meet my company's API protection needs."

"Ease of implementation and flexibility to hold the business logic are the most valuable features."

"How simple it is to create new solutions."

"The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is the built-in monitoring, auditing, RETS, and SOAP services."

"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."

"One valuable feature is that it is event-driven, so when new data is available on the source it can be quickly processed and displayed. Integration is definitely another useful feature, and B2B is one area where webMethods has its own unique thing going, whereby we can do monitoring of transactions, monitoring of client onboarding, and so on."

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

"StreamSets should provide a mechanism to be able to perform data quality assessment when the data is being moved from one source to the target."

"There aren't enough hands-on labs, and debugging is also an issue because it takes a lot of time. Logs are not that clear when you are debugging, and you can only select a single source for a pipeline."

"The data collector in StreamSets has to be designed properly. For example, a simple database configuration with MySQL DB requires the MySQL Connector to be installed."

"I would like to see it integrate with other kinds of platforms, other than Java. We're going to have a lot of applications using .NET and other languages or frameworks. StreamSets is very helpful for the old Java platform but it's hard to integrate with the other platforms and frameworks."

"The execution engine could be improved. When I was at their session, they were using some obscure platform to run. There is a controller, which controls what happens on that, but you should be able to easily do this at any of the cloud services, such as Google Cloud. You shouldn't have any issues in terms of how to run it with their online development platform or design platform, basically their execution engine. There are issues with that."

"The software is very good overall. Areas for improvement are the error logging and the version history. I would like to see better, more detailed error logging information."

"One area for improvement could be the cloud storage server speed, as we have faced some latency issues here and there."

"StreamSet works great for batch processing but we are looking for something that is more real-time. We need latency in numbers below milliseconds."

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

"Forced migration from MessageBroker to Universal Messaging requires large scale reimplementation for JMS."

"​Large file handling is pretty hard comparatively to other middleware tools."

"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."

"Scalability and connectors to different cloud applications is lacking."

"With respect to the API gateway, the runtime component, the stability after a new release is something that can be improved."

"The solution has big instances when deployed under microservices or in a containerized platform. They need to improve that so that it is competitive with other integration solutions, like Redis and Kafka. Deployments under microservices with those solutions are much more lightweight, in the size of the runtime itself, compared with Software AG."

"In terms of improvement, it would be better if it adapted quicker to open standards. It took a while for API specification before the last version was available. The spec of version two was rather quick."

"StreamSets is expensive, especially for small businesses."

"We use the free version. It's great for a public, free release. Our stance is that the paid support model is too expensive to get into. They should honestly reevaluate that."

"We are running the community version right now, which can be used free of charge."

"StreamSets is an expensive solution."

"The pricing is too fixed. It should be based on how much data you need to process. Some businesses are not so big that they process a lot of data."

"The licensing is expensive, and there are other costs involved too. I know from using the software that you have to buy new features whenever there are new updates, which I don't really like. But initially, it was very good."

"The pricing is affordable for any business."

"I believe the pricing is not equitable."

"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."

"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."

"I signed a three-year deal with them. It is a yearly locked-in price for the next three years."

"Always plan five years ahead and don’t jeopardize the quality of your project by dropping items from the bill of materials."

"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."

"Based on our team discussions and feedback, it is pretty costly because they charge us for each transmission."

"Its cost depends on the use cases."

"The price is a little bit high, especially regarding their support."