SwaggerHub vs webMethods.io comparison

SmartBear and IBM are both solutions in the API Management category. SmartBear is ranked #14 with an average rating of 7.6, while IBM is ranked #10 with an average rating of 8.1. SmartBear holds a 1.3% mindshare in APIM, compared to IBM’s 2.1% mindshare. Additionally, 90% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 94% of IBM users who would recommend it.

SwaggerHub

Read 10 SwaggerHub reviews

1,863 Views
1,459 Comparison Views

90% willing to recommend

webMethods.io

Read 92 webMethods.io reviews

3,033 Views
2,148 Comparison Views

94% willing to recommend

SwaggerHub

webMethods.io

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 2024

SwaggerHub and webMethods.io are competitor products in the API management and integration solutions space. SwaggerHub takes the lead in user-friendliness, thanks to its intuitive design, while webMethods.io excels in comprehensive integration capabilities suited for complex enterprise needs.

Features: SwaggerHub provides robust API documentation and collaboration tools that enhance the communication within development teams. Its design-first approach supports seamless workflows. On the other hand, webMethods.io offers a wide array of integration features, facilitating the connection of multiple cloud and on-premises applications. Its extensive connectors make it adaptable to complex systems.

Room for Improvement: SwaggerHub could enhance its feature set to accommodate more diverse use cases, improve integration options, and offer better customization capabilities. webMethods.io can work on simplifying its complex integration environment, enhance its user interface, and streamline its configuration processes to improve accessibility for non-enterprise users.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: SwaggerHub offers an easy and straightforward deployment process focusing on providing effective support. webMethods.io, although more intricate in deployment, offers a strong customer support network that assists with large-scale integrations, ensuring users are guided through more complex implementations.

Pricing and ROI: SwaggerHub is cost-effective and aims for rapid deployment, offering a quicker ROI for smaller projects. In contrast, webMethods.io justifies higher initial costs with its extensive suite of features and potential for significant ROI in enterprises that require scalable solutions.

To learn more, read our detailed SwaggerHub vs. webMethods.io Report (Updated: March 2025).

Buyer's Guide

SwaggerHub vs. webMethods.io

March 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 845,040 peers since 2012

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

SwaggerHub

Ranking in API Management

14th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

webMethods.io

Ranking in API Management

10th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Business-to-Business Middleware (3rd), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (10th), Cloud Data Integration (7th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the API Management category, the mindshare of SwaggerHub is 1.3%, down from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 2.1%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

API Management

Featured Reviews

SwaminathanSubramanian

Director/Enterprise Solutions Architect, Technology Advisor at Kyndryl

Facilitating enterprise-wide API governance and management

Some areas of SwaggerHub that could be improved include the interface between the code editor and the visual editor, the integration with private APIs, which currently requires an upgraded account. The scalability also needs enhancement, as it becomes flaky under increased load. Additionally, the versioning management could be improved to be on par with source code management tools.

Read full review

Michele Illiano

Head of Division at Innovery

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"The most valuable features are the collaboration between multiple teams and the control and distribution of specifications."

"It is a stable solution."

"One of the best features of SwaggerHub is how it allows me to create APIs and control the evolution of APIs within an organization."

"The tool's most valuable feature is licensing."

"It is quite a useful tool. It is quite good with the validation of the spec. It works quite well in terms of errors and conformity to the OpenAPI standard. It is better than Visual Studio Code in terms of editing."

"I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten."

"The product's initial setup phase was easy and not at all difficult."

"The scalability is endless."

More SwaggerHub pros

"The product is very stable."

"It is a very stable product."

"With webMethods, the creation of servers and the utilization of Trading Networks facilitate B2B integration. It resolves any related issues effectively."

"How simple it is to create new solutions."

"Application integrations are offered out-of-the-box, and that is extremely important to us. This is one of the main use cases that we have for it. It is about 60 to 70 percent of the workload in our application today."

"Broker and UM are the best features."

"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."

"This solution has given us a competitive advantage because we have better automation and insight."

More webMethods.io pros

Cons

"SwaggerHub's UI needs to be improved as it looks very old school."

"The scalability aspect of SwaggerHub can be improved. It becomes a bit unreliable when the load is increased and isn't up to par with expectations for scalability."

"The review process should be improved. There seem to be some gaps, at least for us, for the editing part because we would like to have a full request review mechanism. They support some comments, but it is really hard to manage those comments. We would like to use the full request. Therefore, we are now looking to integrate with repositories. It has integration with Bitbucket and GitHub, but we have some internal constraints, and we need to move some of the repositories to GitHub. Our source code is on-premise in Bitbucket, and it was a bit of a problem for us to integrate. Now we are transitioning our repositories to GitHub, and hopefully, we can enable the integration. This will probably solve the problem with the review and approval. Its customization should also be improved. There are limitations around the support for the developer portal. There should be more customization options for the website that you can use as a developer portal. Currently, it has only Swagger UI with minimal customization. You cannot actually add additional pages and documentation for explaining concepts and general things. That's why we have started to look around to see what other tools are doing. They should also allow tagging on the API. We would like to add some tagging on the API to reflect certain things. Currently, any metadata that you would like to have has to be a part of the spec. You cannot do anything else. It should also have support for Open API 3.1, which was released at the beginning of the year. It would be great to be able to switch to that."

"Some areas of SwaggerHub that could be improved include the interface between the code editor and the visual editor, the integration with private APIs, which currently requires an upgraded account."

"We have to use additional tools to test APIs."

"More integration and usability with the cloud microservices would be nice"

"SwaggerHub could be improved with better integration for tools."

"It could be more intuitive compared to one of its competitors."

More SwaggerHub cons

"The certifications and learning resources are not exposed openly enough. For instance, they have a trial version which comes with only a few basic features, and I think that community-wise they need to offer more free or open spaces where developers can feel encouraged to experiment."

"It is difficult to maintain."

"The initial setup of the webMethods Integration Server is not easy but it gets easier once you know it. It is tiresome but not difficult."

"For code version control, you need to use some external software."

"They should develop clear visibility for the onboarding."

"The licensing cost is high compared to other options."

"wM SAP Adapter User Guide - Example, like Message Broker setup was unclear, leading to issues during Testing and we had refer the internet forums to understand that there is a Message Broker Cleanup utility and that needs to be setup as well."

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

More webMethods.io cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It has a yearly subscription, but I am not sure."

"The tool is cheap."

"Initialy good pricing and good, if it comes to Enterprise license agreements."

"webMethods Trading Networks is a bit costly compared to others solutions."

"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."

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

"It is a cost-effective solution."

"It is worth the cost."

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

"This is an expensive product and we may replace it with something more reasonably priced."

More webMethods.io pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Management solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

22%

Computer Software Company

14%

Retailer

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Retailer

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about SwaggerHub?

The tool's most valuable feature is licensing.

See all answers

What needs improvement with SwaggerHub?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for SwaggerHub?

I started using SwaggerHub in its previous version, SmartMiner, with a tool called SoapUI. I used it to create mock web services to test web services and create test scripts and mock APIs. This usa...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Built.io Flow?

webMethods.io needs to incorporate ChatGPT to enhance user experience. It can offer a customized user experience.

See all answers

Comparisons

Microsoft Azure API Management vs SwaggerHub

Compared 27% of the time

Apigee vs SwaggerHub

Compared 23% of the time

MuleSoft API Manager vs SwaggerHub

Compared 9% of the time

Stoplight vs SwaggerHub

Compared 7% of the time

Apache APISIX vs SwaggerHub

Compared 3% of the time

More SwaggerHub Competitors

IBM App Connect vs webMethods.io

Compared 8% of the time

IBM Integration Bus vs webMethods.io

Compared 8% of the time

Apigee vs webMethods.io

Compared 8% of the time

IBM Sterling B2B Integration Services vs webMethods.io

Compared 4% of the time

Boomi iPaaS vs webMethods.io

Compared 4% of the time

More webMethods.io Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

API Management

March 2025

Download SwaggerHub product report

Buyer's Guide

webMethods.io

March 2025

Download webMethods.io product report

Also Known As

No data available

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

Overview

SwaggerHub is an integrated API Development platform, built for teams, that brings the core capabilities of the Swagger framework to design, build, document and deploy APIs. SwaggerHub enables development teams to collaborate and coordinate the entire lifecycle of an API with the flexibility to integrate with the toolset of your choice.

SmartBear

webMethods.io Integration is a powerful integration platform as a service (iPaaS) that provides a combination of capabilities offered by ESBs, data integration systems, API management tools, and B2B gateways.

IBM

Sample Customers

Sonic, Zuora, Woolworths, CrowdFlower

Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings

Buyer's Guide

SwaggerHub vs. webMethods.io

March 2025

Free Report: SwaggerHub vs. webMethods.io

Find out what your peers are saying about SwaggerHub vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our SwaggerHub vs. webMethods.io report.

See our list of best API Management vendors and best Cloud Data Integration vendors.

We monitor all API Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.