Tyk vs webMethods.io comparison

Tyk and IBM are both solutions in the API Management category. Tyk is ranked #19 with an average rating of 8.0, while IBM is ranked #10 with an average rating of 8.2. Tyk holds a 1.9% mindshare in APIM, compared to IBM’s 2.1% mindshare. Additionally, 83% of Tyk users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 94% of IBM users who would recommend it.

Tyk

Read 6 Tyk reviews

2,408 Views
1,924 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

webMethods.io

Read 92 webMethods.io reviews

3,174 Views
2,209 Comparison Views

94% willing to recommend

Tyk

webMethods.io

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 2024

Tyk and webMethods.io are both strong contenders in the API management field, with Tyk offering strengths in modularity and access management, while webMethods.io stands out for its integration capabilities and scalability. webMethods.io is generally considered a better choice for large enterprises seeking comprehensive solutions.

Features: Tyk provides a robust API gateway, analytics tools, and comprehensive security features which are ideal for organizations needing detailed access control and the ability to work with open-source platforms. On the other hand, webMethods.io offers extensive integration possibilities, automation tools, and a suite of features that easily meet the needs of enterprises with complex IT landscapes, with a key focus on broad integration capabilities.

Room for Improvement: Tyk could enhance its cloud capabilities and mature its early-stage features to improve user experience and adoption. Improving developer portal features and interface design could also be beneficial. webMethods.io might consider refining its pricing model to provide more flexibility for smaller enterprises and enhance its API governance tools to match its competitors. Additional user-friendly customizations could improve customer satisfaction and application usability.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: webMethods.io's cloud-based deployment reduces maintenance burdens and includes strong customer support, facilitating easier onboarding although it lacks flexibility. In contrast, Tyk offers multiple deployment options such as on-premise and hybrid setups, which are advantageous for companies needing full infrastructure control but require significant internal resources for setup and maintenance.

Pricing and ROI: Tyk is attractive for businesses looking for scalable pricing without heavy upfront costs, potentially offering high ROI for those scaling over time. Conversely, webMethods.io typically presents a higher price point attributed to its comprehensive feature set, yet can yield significant ROI through advanced automation and integration, particularly for enterprises able to leverage its extensive capabilities effectively.

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

Buyer's Guide

Tyk vs. webMethods.io

March 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 842,592 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

Tyk

Ranking in API Management

19th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

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 March 2025, in the API Management category, the mindshare of Tyk is 1.9%, up 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

MarkDoherty

Founding Director at Point Group

Fastest to get up and running and fewer idiosyncrasies than competitors

In terms of our usage, the main area of concern is that they tend to build enhancements slightly ahead of the considerations for what those enhancements and extensions are. So it could be slightly better communication with the customer base that would be my main issue with them. But as a product, it's very difficult to find any major faults.

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 scalability is very good. That was a key factor in the selection, like how it could be pushed to high volume and scalability, which seemed to be very good."

"The most valuable feature is the load balancing with the circuit-breaker function."

"The feature I find most valuable is that this solution allows us to manage our security."

"It is a good product for API management."

"The portal for developers that this solution provides has great functionality."

"You can set up workflows and write limited pieces of logic."

"There's hardware, software and application integration, providing hosting flexibility."

"How simple it is to create new solutions."

"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.)"

"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."

"The most valuable feature of webMethods Integration Server is all the capabilities it provides. We leverage most of the features, that they have offered to us. Our vendor has made some additional features on top of the webMethods Integration Server and we use all the features together."

"It's a visual tool, so our transformations can be quickly implemented without a lot of fuss. The fact that we have an easy way to expose REST services is also very interesting. It offers the possibility to connect over GMS to synchronize message brokers."

"Operationally, I consider the solution to be quite good."

"Oracle's self-service capabilities, of which we make extensive use, is the most valuable feature."

More webMethods.io pros

Cons

"In terms of our usage, the main area of concern is that they tend to build enhancements slightly ahead of the considerations for what those enhancements and extensions are. So it could be slightly better communication with the customer base that would be my main issue with them."

"We would like a better tool for generating documentation for the APIs to be developed."

"Sometimes when new features are released, they are not immediately stable."

"It is a young product and does not have the kind of brand recognition that would make it a more popular solution with our clients."

"I would like to see some additional features like having some extensions for .NET core because we use it for our back-end language."

"We ran it for a while, but then we decided to move away from Tyk, because Tyk's cloud version, the SaaS version, has a significant limitation of limited flexibility, so you can't program very much."

"A potential drawback of webMethods.io API is its adaptability to legacy systems, which can vary in compatibility."

"The products, at the moment, are new and there should perhaps be support for the older version of the protocols."

"Forced migration from MessageBroker to Universal Messaging requires large scale reimplementation for JMS."

"Rules engine processes and BPM processes should be improved."

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

"Prices should be reduced, ideally by up to 30% for long-term customers like us."

"As webMethods Integration Server is expensive, that's its area for improvement."

"Some of the things that we use cannot be done in this solution. For these things, we have to either use a Java service or a util service. There is no predefined or existing service that we can use. So, we have to work on the util service and write on top of it. Its price can also be better. It is pretty costly because they charge us for each transmission."

More webMethods.io cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There are different versions and plans available depending on the requirements, so there is flexibility in terms of the pricing."

"It had a free version, which suited many of our needs, but not all, but we were happy to go ahead with the licensed version as well, which is the paid version."

"We are using the open-source version of this product, so there are no licensing costs for its use."

"The cost curve is far smoother, both in terms of volume and the number of calls it's running on, compared to most competitors. So it's a tad more expensive at the very low end, but the curve is nothing like Apigee or some of the others."

"The price is low compared to other products of a similar type."

"The solution’s pricing is too high."

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

"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."

"Pricing has to be negotiated with the local Software AG representative. SAG can always prepare an appropriate pricing model for every client."

"Some of the licensing is "component-ized," which is confusing to new users/customers."

"It is a cost-effective solution."

"It is worth the cost."

"Some who consider this solution often avoid it due to its high price."

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

842,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

26%

Computer Software Company

16%

Healthcare Company

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Retailer

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Tyk?

The scalability is very good. That was a key factor in the selection, like how it could be pushed to high volume and scalability, which seemed to be very good.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Tyk?

The pricing is actually quite competitive. In Azure environments, it gets beaten by Microsoft API Gateway, but on the other hand, it offers some features that Microsoft lacks. So it really comes do...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Tyk?

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

Traefik Enterprise vs Tyk

Compared 16% of the time

Apache APISIX vs Tyk

Compared 15% of the time

Amazon API Gateway vs Tyk

Compared 11% of the time

Apigee vs Tyk

Compared 10% of the time

IBM DataPower Gateway vs Tyk

Compared 3% of the time

More Tyk Competitors

IBM App Connect vs webMethods.io

Compared 8% of the time

IBM Integration Bus vs webMethods.io

Compared 7% of the time

Apigee vs webMethods.io

Compared 7% of the time

Boomi iPaaS vs webMethods.io

Compared 4% of the time

Mule ESB vs webMethods.io

Compared 4% of the time

More webMethods.io Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Tyk

March 2025

Download Tyk 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

Tyk is an open source API Gateway that is fast and scalable, an API management platform featuring an API gateway, analytics, developer portal and dashboard. Available in three flavours to best suit your architecture and governance. We offer full cloud or on-premises options, and the best of both worlds with our unique hybrid model. www.tyk.io

Tyk

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

Trip Advisor, Juniper Networks, AT&T

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

Buyer's Guide

Tyk vs. webMethods.io

March 2025

Free Report: Tyk vs. webMethods.io

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

842,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Tyk 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.