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

TIBCO Managed File Transfer vs webMethods.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 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

TIBCO Managed File Transfer
Ranking in Managed File Transfer (MFT)
16th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
webMethods.io
Ranking in Managed File Transfer (MFT)
10th
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), API Management (10th), Cloud Data Integration (7th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Managed File Transfer (MFT) category, the mindshare of TIBCO Managed File Transfer is 1.6%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 2.0%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Managed File Transfer (MFT)
 

Featured Reviews

Joshua Rule - PeerSpot reviewer
Serves as a straightforward SFTP server that offers reasonably good support
I think some of the automated deployment features could use some assistance, which is an area where it currently lacks. The product needs some ability to help it with the deployment model, which is a little difficult. Some support for the area revolving around PGP protocols in the product would be helpful. I think TIBCO could try to integrate better with API management software. TIBCO is a fairly solid product, but integration with some API management software should provide a better selling point since TIBCO would have some great API management capabilities.
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

"They have great multi-factor authentication for extra security."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to do centralized administration."
"TIBCO has its own integration tool."
"I feel comfortable using this product with its ease of building interfaces for developers. This is a better integration tool for integrating with various applications like Oracle, Salesforce, mainframes, etc. It works fine in the integration of legacy software as well."
"It's a good tool, and it has a stable messaging broker."
"It’s fairly easy to view, move, and mange access across different components. Different component types are categorized and can be viewed in a web based administration console."
"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 product is powerful, straightforward, and easy to use."
"They are the building blocks of EAI in SAG products, and they offer a very good platform."
"EDI is robust and integration with SAP is good."
"From a user perspective, the feature which I like the most about Integration Server is its designer."
 

Cons

"I think some of the automated deployment features could use some assistance, which is an area where it currently lacks. The product needs some ability to help it with the deployment model, which is a little difficult."
"The UI could be better."
"Their cloud product is not yet stable."
"The deployment should be simplified."
"Prices should be reduced, ideally by up to 30% for long-term customers like us."
"Perhaps in the area of Microservices, where I think Trading Networks could benefit from some improvements."
"I would like to see the price improve."
"I would like to have a dashboard where I can see all of the communication between components and the configuration."
"The installation process should be simplified for first time users and be made more user-friendly."
"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."
"A while ago, they were hacked, and it took them a very long time to open their website again in order to download any service packs or any features. I don't know what they could do differently. I know that they were vulnerable, and there was some downtime, but because they were down, we were unable to download any potential service packs."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is very good for the complexity that the tool provides."
"There are no hidden costs in addition to the standard licensing fees for webMethods. For corporate organizations, it's a very cheap or fairly priced product, but for growing or small businesses, it's quite expensive. These businesses would probably need to consider an enterprise services bus at some point. Thus, from a pricing point, it closes out non-cooperate businesses."
"The price of webMethods Integration Server isn't that high from an enterprise context, but open-source ESB solutions will always be the cheapest."
"There is a license needed to use the webMethods Integration Server."
"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 vendor is flexible with respect to pricing."
"The product is expensive."
"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."
"The price is high and I give it a five out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Managed File Transfer (MFT) solutions are best for your needs.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
34%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Insurance Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about TIBCO Managed File Transfer?
The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to do centralized administration.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for TIBCO Managed File Transfer?
The price is very good for the complexity that the tool provides.
What needs improvement with TIBCO Managed File Transfer?
I think some of the automated deployment features could use some assistance, which is an area where it currently lacks. The product needs some ability to help it with the deployment model, which is...
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

No data available
Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Endesa/Enel Group, Symantec, Visma Connect
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about TIBCO Managed File Transfer vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.