IBM Sterling File Gateway Reviews

I use the solution in my company since we have lots of different use cases attached to the tool. Mainly, we have incoming flow in SFTP or SCP protocols. Some of the files are pushed to local file systems or other internal servers. For outgoing flow, we have BMC Software to control and receive orders and push files to the server using different protocols. We also have a few specific business processes to connect HTTPS servers to get or push files.

The solution's most valuable feature revolves around the tool's engines, which can do many different things.

The weakness is that the engines associated with the tool require too much expertise to master how they work.

Finding people who know the product from the market or choosing IT personnel to work with can be challenging.

Improvements can be made to the tool's user interface and user experience. It would be good for the tool to develop a command-line interface to replace all the scripts present in the product and execute all the different scripts.

Currently, what we are looking at in the tool is already in development. It should support different storage solutions on the cloud, be it on AWS Azure, Google, or even if it is something different, like S3. The product is currently integrating with the full support of the protocols. There should be support for different storage solutions on the cloud. I want the tool to support Google Drive.

I feel the tool's setup process could be made better, but it can be difficult because the tool's vendor has been proposing a lot of different implementation methods. You can use it on the cloud or install it on the cloud, Windows, or Linux, and the tool needs to manage it on all the different operational systems. On the on-premises part, it is different from how it is on the cloud. For me, being able to install the tool can be complicated if I consider how I want to configure it. I want the tool to offer a CLI or a command line interface to help the users figure out how to work with the tool.

The tool's scalability can be made better. Currently, we are using a cluster, so you can always add more nodes. You can upgrade each node and its capacity for processing. In the cluster, when you add a node, you don't do just one node, so the cluster needs some processing abilities to manage all the nodes. It is a very scalable tool, and it has good capability. If you go for the cloud installation instead of an on-premises one, you are able to develop the scalability for any project on the cloud because it has the infrastructure to process as many nodes as you need.

I think what could be improved for the support is understanding that any answer must be used by the user in practice. Sometimes, when you have an answer, it is not acceptable because sometimes it is not defined. Sometimes, when the product is improved or supports some new feature, it acts too limited to be useful. My issue is that depending on the module you want support for, you can have good support, but the support is more like five or four out of ten because the support changes and doesn't understand how the product is used by the user or how it should work. I recently raised a ticket with support. We had an issue with the tool, and the support had one of my previous tickets but told me to do something, and I found that the response was not good. The support wanted us to change our environment parameters, which would have an impact on the other software tools. The support did not understand, and it was hard for us to explain that we could not break all those systems just to correct the issue on a single software. Lots of exchanges had to happen between our company and the support team just to explain a response to an issue in practice and in theory. The support team's solution could be great, but in practice, it was not so good.

I have been using IBM Sterling File Gateway for ten years. I am just a user of the solution.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten. The issue is with the resource, so when you install the product, you will face some limits on what can be used. Sometimes, if you have four to five systems or if you have four CPUs, it will meet its limits, but it is the resource that IBM needs where there are limits.

It is a very good and scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The solution's technical support is sometimes slow to understand the use cases, and the answers are not practical. The responses from the technical team cannot be used. I rate the technical support a four out of ten.

Neutral

If ten means the setup process is difficult, I rate the product's initial setup phase as a two out of ten.

The product's initial setup phase is hard because there are a lot of things you need to finetune in the product. We are using it in a highly resilient and highly available configuration. We are using the tool across different areas. If ten means very easy setup, I rate the setup phase as two or three out of ten. It is too difficult to implement the software. I know how to use the tool. I know how to use the tool, but a lot of people don't have it. I am still in the process of learning more about IBM Sterling File Gateway, and I plan to use Secure Proxy. We are using the external authentication server. All the software needs to work together, and sometimes, it is difficult to know which one you need to begin with and how it works between them. I think the tool is difficult to begin working with during the initial stages. You can have some easier solutions, but you will lose out on the high availability or the high resilience functionality offered by IBM Sterling File Gateway.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model as a cluster in our data center.

For deployment, I updated the application systems. I had a project for eighty days. We had to keep all the previous data on the configurations, and I didn't have all the process-related documentation. I had a lot of work to do. During installation of the product, a one-day operation is needed. You install the tool in several different environments and servers, and you need to configure everything together to be able to check everything, and that is where you lose out on a lot of time. The time needed to deploy the tool depends more on your knowledge of the tool. The configuration takes much more time than the setup itself.

The time required to learn to use the tool depends on the level you want to use it. The tool's use can be learned in one or two weeks, but generally, you need a lot of generic knowledge. To be able to completely work on the tool, you would need several months.

The biggest advantage of the tool is that it acts as a centralized solution for all the different protocols. From our company, we are using, but not directly installing, the IBM Sterling File Gateway. However, we are using the basic protocols with it.

One needs to have a lot of knowledge to use the tool. You need to read a lot of documentation, participate in the community, and do several other things.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

We use IBM Sterling File Gateway to transfer files from a source to a target. This involves creating producers, consumers, channels, and templates to facilitate the file transfer. In Sterling Integrator, we implement business processes to define how a particular file should be picked up, the file filter format, and the protocol to be used. These configurations can be set at the Unix level or within the Sterling Integrator business processes. The files are picked up from the source and transferred to the target. We manage external files by using IDs and other necessary details. We handle everything from gathering information from partners to onboarding and through the hypercare phase, ensuring complete management of the file transfer process.

It offers seamless file transfers. While other tools are available, Sterling File Gateway stands out for its security, sustainability, and visibility features. It supports partner integrations, enabling them to use mailboxes to log in and retrieve files. This process simplifies file management and enhances users' visibility.

We are currently manually creating routing templates. It automates creating routing templates, channels, and everything else.

IBM Sterling File Gateway is a secure file transfer solution designed to handle large volumes of data. It supports high-capacity transfers, such as sending files up to 2 gigabytes in size. The system uses robust security measures, including PGP encryption and AS2 protocols, to ensure secure file transmission.

The platform features a user-friendly desktop interface, which simplifies managing and executing file transfers. Additionally, IBM Sterling File Gateway can handle transformation and translation files, facilitating seamless data mapping and integration.

We conduct monthly maintenance. When the system becomes unstable, mainly when it receives a large volume of data simultaneously from the source, it can lead to issues. This instability might cause all devices to enter a routing state. In such cases, we need to manually verify and redeliver the files to ensure they are properly transferred. Alternatively, we can use the Fireflies mailbox to handle bulk file transfers. During instability, files might remain in the source and routing states. By checking the event details, we can confirm the delivery status of individual files. 

I have been using IBM Sterling File Gateway for six years.

Ten people are using this solution.

The product is expensive.

Some partners may not have the budget or other resources to use this product, but it’s important to highlight the security levels we offer with IBM Sterling File Gateway. We provide robust security features like password authentication, public key authentication, and, when using the AS2 protocol, certificate authentication. This ensures that we can securely transfer large volumes of data.

I highly recommend this product for its comprehensive visibility features. For instance, if a file gets stuck, we can quickly identify and resolve the issue. This visibility is crucial for monitoring and troubleshooting file transfers, ensuring a seamless process.

Additionally, I can educate partners using FastTrack on how to leverage these benefits effectively. I will guide them through the process, emphasizing the advantages of using IBM Sterling File Gateway, particularly the ease of handling major issues. Once implemented, the system operates smoothly and will only be impacted if there are changes.

It is easy to understand, though it might present some complications that could be challenging for beginners. Even newcomers can grasp it with some time and effort. The self-help tools and visibility features enhance the learning experience, making it easier for users to navigate and utilize the system efficiently.

IBM Sterling File Gateway involves multiple levels of encryption. We employ various encryption methods to ensure data security. This provides a robust security level.

It is an excellent product used by many companies and clients. We have been using it for a long time, and it provides a seamless process that is easy for users to understand.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

We use IBM Sterling File Gateway to transform files from sender to receiver and integrate them with third-party applications through protocols such as HTTPS, HTTP, FTP, and SFTP. In our current deployment, we have integrated it with MQ and SFTP protocols. It's used primarily for cost-effectiveness and easy file monitoring, crucial for banking and financial transmissions.

It provides cost-effectiveness compared to other ASP tools, allowing us to easily monitor files and resolve issues during file transfers, which is crucial for banking and financial operations.

IBM Sterling File Gateway is user-friendly, allowing us to easily monitor and track file data. In case any issues arise during file transfers, we can resend the files. This is particularly beneficial for critical financial activities due to its reliable tracking and monitoring system.

IBM Sterling File Gateway depends on a database, which can be a drawback compared to platforms where system resources are entirely controlled internally. There's also a need to manually set up adapters and protocols based on requirements, which might be a bit cumbersome.

We have been using IBM Sterling File Gateway for three years.

We haven't observed any significant issues on the platform level, but there are occasional file system volume issues that were resolved after increasing their cloud-level volume space.

IBM Sterling File Gateway is highly scalable, allowing us to increase application capabilities and parameters as needed. It supports business growth by providing reliable file transfer and replay options.

Customer service is good. We had some initial configuration issues that were resolved promptly with their suggestions, such as setting specific parameters for file format conversions and connectivity.

Positive

We previously used DataPower but switched to IBM Sterling File Gateway due to its cost-effectiveness. DataPower involved higher costs, while Sterling offers similar functionalities at a better price.

The initial setup involves gathering requirements from sender and receiver applications, setting user accounts, and ensuring firewall configurations. Creating the necessary business processes is crucial for the setup.

The deployment does not require more resources but does require monitoring. Our monitoring does not have an alerting system, so resources are needed for manual monitoring.

The main return on investment is cost savings, as IBM Sterling File Gateway offers a very good monitoring system and allows us to easily track any issues with minimal resource allocation.

The cost-effectiveness of IBM Sterling File Gateway was a major factor in our decision to use it, in comparison to the higher costs associated with DataPower.

We used DataPower before switching to IBM Sterling File Gateway.

IBM Sterling File Gateway is recommended for its cost-effectiveness and robust monitoring capabilities. However, the deployment process can be a bit challenging due to the requirement for manual adapter and protocol setups.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

It's a very good, stable, and organized tool, as it is from IBM. It has great support. 

It's supported all available file transfer protocols to automate our transfers.

The file transfer automation is organized and monitored and gave us a solution with all protocols.

It is very easy to manage and implement a transfer solution with the multi-platform conversion of characters without issue.

The validation and monitoring of the file transfer are helpful.

It offers easy utilization of resources for smooth transfers.

It has supported all available file transfer protocols to automate our transfers and is helpful in giving virtuality to utilize the DMZ via a secure proxy. It is an organized and stable way to utilize the infra.

The file transfer automation and the way it is organized and monitored is great.

It is very easy to manage and implement a transfer solution multi-platform conversion of characters without issue.

The validation and monitoring of a file transfer is easy. It offers smooth transfers.

It's very good, stable, and organized. 

It has supported all available file transfer protocols to automate transfers.

The file transfer automation is great.

It is very easy to manage and implement transfer solutions via a multi-platform conversion of characters without issue.

The validation and monitoring of file transfer are easy.

The admin console needs some work. There are old buttons and limitations when looking for logs. 

required the reason why has so old way of buttons and limitations for looking at logs.

I've been using this product for seven years.

The solution is very stable. 

The solution is very scalable. 

We did use something else for vendor support.

It is easy to organize.

It's the best solution and is easy to utilize.

We did not evaluate other options. 

We use the product for exchanging data internally and externally. 

Externally, we exchange data files with trading partners, government entities, and suppliers. Internally, it's used to share data between applications. 

The platform has streamlined file transfers across multiple stakeholders and systems. However, the lack of native API capability has been a drawback, requiring third-party tools for effective monitoring and API functionality.

The solution's most valuable features include the partner management capability, which centralizes all configurations and connections, and the resiliency and monitoring features that allow us to track files and notify stakeholders when issues arise.

The product could be improved by offering native API capabilities and making the solution more user-friendly for larger, multi-node implementations.

I have been using IBM Sterling File Gateway for about 12 to 13 years.

The product's stability can become an issue, especially when dealing with high data volumes.

While the solution works well in smaller environments, performance decreases as the scale increases. I would rate its scalability at around six out of ten.

The technical support is often outsourced to partners, and response times could be faster, which is a significant concern.

The initial setup is quite complex and usually requires professional assistance from either IBM or one of their partners. It's a product that anyone with experience in MFT solutions can easily implement.

The solution was implemented with the help of third-party vendors.

Since I started with IBM from the beginning, other options were not evaluated during my initial setup. However, over time, we have looked into third-party tools for additional capabilities that IBM lacks.

I suggest that larger organizations evaluate whether the platform's scalability and stability meet their needs, especially when dealing with large volumes of data, as performance can suffer. It's essential to factor in the cost and time for third-party solutions that may be needed for monitoring and API use.

Overall, I rate it a seven out of ten. 

We use this solution for financial management. For example, transactions between the bank and credit card and cheque printing that need to be given to the printing service industries for transfer. There are APIs that are exposed for the corporate customers for their salary posting and other transaction settlements.

I have found almost all the features valuable. 

IBM is advising not to use the IT translate anymore but this is going to be an extra cost to the customer to use the alternative. 

Additionally, the solution can improve the REST API protocols. If you look at the REST API client services available, you can do an API call to any other API exposed, but the way the API comes it is not treated right.

I have been using this solution for approximately 15 years.

The solution is stable and reliable.

The solution does not have any issue with scalability.

The technical support is very responsive and as soon as you raise a ticket you are connected to someone that is able to help you at all levels, whether it is at the product level or any technical level.

The initial setup is straightforward.

There are two types of customer licenses, an annual preview license, and an ELA-based license. I have found the solution is priced well. However, they need to review the pricing model because if you look at any other competitors, such as GlobalSCAPE, they do pricing based on the components and what you select. With this solution you have a monolithic application which you need to buy, there is no component level price discount.

I have evaluated GlobalSCAPE.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate IBM Sterling File Gateway a nine out of ten.

We are using this solution for file management within our organization, and in different outlets as well.

It's highly configurable and there is no need for standalone scripting. It's adaptive, functional, and it's quick and easy to set up interfaces. It's similar to the Oracle product switch and Fusion Huawei.

The areas that need improvement are user management, user interface, and the segregation of users. These are the areas that I am battling with at the moment. It's not geared towards your user community. If you're an administrator of the system, it's fairly easy, but then to segregate the configuration and give the availability to it, it's a bit of a nightmare.

In the next release, I would like to see upgraded user segregation, user management, and looking into auto-deploys. Once you need to deploy a new bundle of software, you need some service downtime. I would like to see auto-deployment without service disruptions. That is what this industry is always looking at. 

When you deploy something, you want your service to always be on, and with this solution that is not the case.

I have been using this solution for ten years.

It's fairly stable. 

Over the years, we have only encountered one or two bugs, which were introduced through new software releases.

This solution is scalable, but there are always licensing cost implications. 

You can scale it, but it depends on how you scale it. If you scale it horizontally, there will be license implications.

It's an enterprise solution and we have just under 2,800 interfaces on the system. Every interface would count as a user.

The initial setup is straightforward. It takes approximately three months to deploy.

Within our company, we have a team of four, plus two integrators to deploy this solution. 

To maintain this solution we have our team of four.

We used an integrator to deploy this solution.

It is now something that is an off-the-shelf solution. It's not something that we custom develop. When it comes to a roll-out, it's fairly easy.

It's reasonably priced at $800,000. That's the annual maintenance cost.

You have to pay to expand your additional platform.

The only limitation of this solution is that you have to pay to expand it, other than that it's stable and flexible.

Plan your upgrades very carefully, and go through the documentation.

It's a fairly stable product, but there are always other products on the market.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We exchange many files with our partners. So our primary use case for this product is for our partners to securely send us files for processing.  

The most valuable feature is really the same as our main use case: secure file transfer. I would need to consult with my operation team for any other valuable features.  

I think it would be good if IBM continues to focus on the primary use of Sterling File Gateway which is file transfer. They can continue to expand those capabilities. We can already get the files securely and we can work with the partner on some of the schedule. But the solution might also cover working with different aspects of the workflow. We have quite a big spectrum of customers in our portfolio, and having more options could help us to better work with them. The workflow capabilities are some of the key features as to why I believe IBM Sterling has been picked as a solution for this type of product in the past.  

I have been exploring whether we can expand API capabilities. I am studying what they have to offer now, but I would like it if the solution could offer even more support of API usage. It would be good to be able to make API calls yourself to do more with integration. With a more open API trend, we could place more focus on this area. That would be something I would really be looking for in future releases.  

The version that we are using will be going through some changes in support from IBM. I want to start the long term roadmap to look at how that affects our usage.  

I just joined the company, but I think they have been using the product for more than 10 years. I have been using it personally for more than five years.  

IBM Sterling is quite scalable per my experience. We cover the whole sector of a broad industry and that is a lot of users. I think it is hard to say exactly how many end-users there are. But entity-wise, we are working with more than 200 companies through our instance.  

I have had the opportunity to contact technical support and I think that the technical team is okay. We just want to be sure that the product will be good for our long term roadmap.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this solution as a ten-out-of-ten. In the past, it seems the whole industry adopted this solution because it was the leader in the field. Whether their whole architecture will be adaptable enough for the cloud is something that needs to be studied further.