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

Talend Open Studio vs webMethods.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Talend Open Studio
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
50
Ranking in other categories
Data Integration (5th)
webMethods.io
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
92
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (3rd), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (9th), API Management (9th), Cloud Data Integration (7th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)
 

Featured Reviews

Jason Hale - PeerSpot reviewer
Intuitive interface and documentation make it simple to build jobs and APIs and logging helps pinpoint and resolve issues quickly
Talend is doing a lot of work at the moment, and it's not there yet, but the whole platform could be managed in a SaaS-type environment. You still need to have the Studio running on a virtual desktop or a PC. They will get to be able to do the whole thing inside your browser, so you don't need to install anything locally. It's down the track, and it's the nirvana that we were looking for in Boomi. But the biggest challenge they have is that the platform is so focused on the Studio for all of its development. They'll probably get there, but they have such a mature Studio client that it's a huge amount of work to get all of that functionality into a browser or SaaS platform. That's pretty much the biggest flaw with the Talend environment—being reliant on the Studio, which needed to be on a local machine. The only other thing is that you have to integrate into an API gateway. We're in Azure, so we use Microsoft Azure Gateway. It doesn't come with its own gateway, which is another sort of big plus side that we saw in Boomi. Talend isn't quite there yet with the API gateway. Other than that, it's bloody hard to find something because it just seems to be all good.
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

"This product is very easy to use."
"The initial setup of the product was very easy."
"There are many architectures: hybrid, cloud, and on-prem."
"The initial setup was quite straightforward. The deployment took between two and three days."
"Talend Studio has the ability to use it to ensure data quality."
"It has got so many connectors. It is intuitive and easy to use."
"Talend Open Studio is easy to create jobs. We use the basic functionality and it is very good."
"The most valuable feature for me when it comes to this solution is that it's easy to use."
"The Software AG Designer has been great. It's very intuitive."
"Operationally, I consider the solution to be quite good."
"What I found most valuable in webMethods Integration Server is that it's a strong ESB. It also has strong API modules and portals."
"It's a good tool, and it has a stable messaging broker."
"Some of the key features are the integration platform, query mechanism, message handling within the bus, and the rules engine. We've had a really good experience with webMethods Integration Server."
"The developer portal is a valuable feature."
"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."
"Application integration, business process integration, and B2B partner integration are valuable. But among these, I feel B2B partner integration is the most valuable. This module integrates two business partners and exchanges data through electronic data interchange messages in the form of specific standards, without any manual process needed."
 

Cons

"The technical support and documentation need a lot of work to come up to standard."
"The product could be more intuitive."
"The solution needs more integrations."
"The profiling perspective needs improvement. Instead of using it in the studio, we are using a different tool which is also provided by Talend. It's redundant."
"In version 6.2 we did encounter issues with the job servers and specifically with ESB. Version 6.3 is better but large jobs can cause the MDM server to fall over, requiring a reboot."
"In terms of features, it has all the features that I need. However, it consumes a lot of resources. It is using a lot of RAM, and they need to fix the issue related to resource consumption. It currently requires more than 24 gigabytes of RAM, which is a big amount of RAM."
"The server-side should be completely revamped."
"The solution should offer better integration with other products."
"The Software AG Designer could be more memory-efficient or CPU-efficient so that we can use it with middle-spec hardware."
"The price has room for improvement."
"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."
"The licensing cost is high compared to other options."
"The interface needs some work. It is not very user-friendly."
"The deployment should be simplified."
"A potential drawback of webMethods.io API is its adaptability to legacy systems, which can vary in compatibility."
"webMethods Integration Server needs to add more adapters."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The cost, particularly in Africa, is quite high."
"Talend Open Studio costs about 11,000 a year."
"Price could be lower. It is getting too expensive when compared to some other solutions, which is actually a little bit concerning."
"It is an open-source tool which means it is a free solution."
"Open Studio has a basic license and additional costs for services, including customer support and technical assistance."
"Talend Open Studio is priced too high."
"I am using the open-source version and it is free."
"There are many versions available and one is open-sourced which is free."
"It is worth the cost."
"Initialy good pricing and good, if it comes to Enterprise license agreements."
"I don’t have much idea about prices, but webMethods API Portal is not something cheaper."
"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."
"The solution's development license is free for three to six months. We have to pay for other things."
"The price of webMethods Integration Server isn't that high from an enterprise context, but open-source ESB solutions will always be the cheapest."
"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."
"Some of the licensing is "component-ized," which is confusing to new users/customers."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
850,671 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

How does Talend Open Studio compare with AWS Glue?
We reviewed AWS Glue before choosing Talend Open Studio. AWS Glue is the managed ETL (extract, transform, and load) from Amazon Web Services. AWS Glue enables AWS users to create and manage jobs in...
What do you like most about Talend Open Studio?
It is easy to use and covers most of the functions needed. We can use the code without any extra effort. The open source is very good. They have the same commercials with additional connectors. The...
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.
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Almerys, BF&M, Findus
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about Talend Open Studio vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,671 professionals have used our research since 2012.