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

SwaggerHub vs webMethods.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 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

SwaggerHub
Ranking in API Management
14th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
webMethods.io
Ranking in API Management
9th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
91
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (4th), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (10th), Cloud Data Integration (8th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)
 

Featured Reviews

Murahari Bandarupalli - PeerSpot reviewer
Simplifies API design and development for developers
SwaggerHub simplifies API development for developers by providing a platform where they can efficiently create APIs without manually creating JSON or visual files. Developers can streamline the process of developing APIs and generating requests. SwaggerHub is a platform used for API design and management. Postman serves as a tool for creating and testing API requests. While Postman offers capabilities for scripting and automation, SwaggerHub focuses on defining APIs using the OpenAPI Specification, facilitating collaboration, and generating documentation automatically. While there may be ways to integrate Postman scripts into other testing tools like JMeter, such integration would typically require manual effort and customization. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.
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 product's initial setup phase was easy and not at all difficult."
"The most valuable features are the collaboration between multiple teams and the control and distribution of specifications."
"I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten."
"The scalability is endless."
"You can click & play and add the notation in a human-readable form. Spotlight is also very good in the graphical design of APIs."
"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."
"The tool's most valuable feature is licensing."
"It is a stable solution."
"The MFT component of webMethods, for example, is easy to set up and convenient to use. It handles files very efficiently and it is easy to automate tasks with complex schedules. Monitoring is centralized to MWS which can be used to monitor other products as well (Trading Networks, BPM, MFT, etc.)"
"webMethods API Portal is overall very valuable. It is now a comprehensive API catalogue that serves various purposes, including API assessment and evaluation."
"What I like the most about the solution is that it comes with ready-made tools like handling security tokens and OAuth."
"There were no complexities involved in the setup phase...The product is able to meet my company's API protection needs."
"The solution is scalable."
"Clients choose webMethods.io API for its intuitive interface, promoting seamless interaction and quick communication between systems."
"The development is very fast. If you know what you're doing, you can develop something very easily and very fast."
"Our use case is for integration factory for SAP. It is mostly for SAP integration."
 

Cons

"SwaggerHub could be improved with better integration for tools."
"It has limited functionality...Unfortunately, some of its features are not what we need."
"It could be more intuitive compared to one of its competitors."
"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."
"We have to use additional tools to test APIs."
"SwaggerHub's UI needs to be improved as it looks very old school."
"More integration and usability with the cloud microservices would be nice"
"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."
"I would like the solution to provide bi-weekly updates."
"webMethods.io Integration's installation is complex. It should also improve integration and connectors."
"Some things could be improved, especially how ActiveTransfer handles third-party file transfers. It would be nice to have a native file-watching mechanism for when you're scheduling jobs with a third-party scheduler. Currently, we are using an outside file watcher solution to check the files before the file transfer. It checks the location to see if the file is there. If the file is there, it will prepare it for transfer. If the file isn't available, it will send an email it can create a ticket send it now. We recommended adding this file watcher mechanism."
"There should be better logging, or a better dashboard, to allow you to see see the logs of the services."
"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."
"The solution's release management feature could be better."
"We need more dashboards and reporting engines that can provide detailed information for management. In short, we need better analytics."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool is cheap."
"It has a yearly subscription, but I am not sure."
"Most of my clients would like the price of the solution to be reduced."
"This is not a cheap solution but, compared to other products such as those offered by IBM, the pricing is similar."
"webMethods Integration Server is expensive, and there's no fixed price on it because it has a point pricing model. You can negotiate, which makes it interesting."
"Based on our team discussions and feedback, it is pretty costly because they charge us for each transmission."
"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."
"The product is very expensive."
"The pricing and licensing costs for webMethods are very high, which is the only reason that we might switch to another product."
"The price of webMethods Integration Server isn't that high from an enterprise context, but open-source ESB solutions will always be the cheapest."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Management solutions are best for your needs.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
21%
Computer Software Company
14%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
 

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.
What needs improvement with SwaggerHub?
I noticed that the editor on SwaggerHub, like Gabbiti, is graphical in nature. With this mind map interface, one can easily define endpoints and paths. The solution is lacking behind because it not...
What is your primary use case for SwaggerHub?
When you want to define an API with your customers using SwaggerHub, you first interact with them to understand their requirements. Then, you proceed to build the API definition. This involves crea...
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
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sonic, Zuora, Woolworths, CrowdFlower
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about SwaggerHub vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.