SwaggerHub vs webMethods.io comparison

"The scalability is endless."

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

"Code generation is one of the important features of SwaggerHub. We design our API, and we can generate a very rich codebase and add to it. The code generation feature is very valuable."

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

"You can click & play and add the notation in a human-readable form. Spotlight is also very good in the graphical design of APIs."

"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 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."

"The connectivity that the tool provides, along with the functionalities needed for our company's business, are some of the beneficial aspects of the product."

"The tool is very powerful and user-friendly."

"The messaging part is the most valuable feature."

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

"From a user perspective, the feature which I like the most about Integration Server is its designer."

"webMethods Trading Networks is a good solution for interacting with outside of the organization. We can integrate the solutions with multiple outside the organization."

"We have a reusable code that we can replicate for any new interfaces."

"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."

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

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

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

"It has limited functionality...Unfortunately, some of its features are not what we need."

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

"SwaggerHub lacks in terms of integrations. They have APIs integrated, and they also have some connectors, but they don't have integration with many of the things that we use. For example, for connecting with SVN, we had to implement external scripts. So, they should work on the integration because currently, we have to work on the integration with our DevOps, continuous delivery, or continuous deployment. It would be great if these integrations are built-in. Mainly, we would like it to integrate with SVN and Jira."

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

"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."

"The product must add more compatible connectors."

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

"When migration happens from the one release to an upgraded release from Software AG, many of the existing services are deprecated and developers have to put in effort testing and redeveloping some of the services. It would be better that upgrade releases took care to support the lower-level versions of webMethods."

"The solution should include REST API calls."

"The price has room for improvement."

"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."

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

"The tool is cheap."

"The management considers it a bit expensive. At first, we wanted to purchase a license for 100 users, but we went for a license for only 15 users. Its cost is $10,220 per year."

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

"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."

"Its cost depends on the use cases."

"I don’t have much idea about prices, but webMethods API Portal is not something cheaper."

"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."

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

"It's a good deal for the money that we pay."

"The product is expensive."

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