webMethods.io Reviews

We have some common services, like REST-based services. We have applications, general social services, and application services. We'll use the solution as a utility to share across the applications selected.

When an organization is, for example, a bank, it can't use an open-source solution - even though open-source solutions are providing more current features. They need to go for a vendor-based solution like this product. 

It's a well-settled, mature platform.

The stability is good.

It can scale. 

We'd like for them to open up to a more cloud-based solution that could offer more flexibility and maybe a better rules engine or more integration with rules engines. The rules should also be more centralized. 

We'd like to see more documentation. We feel like we may be missing some things and would like some documentation to lay out the entire product better. We need better use cases. They don't offer many examples to showcase their product's capabilities. 

I've used the solution for more than a decade. It's been 12 to 14 years at this point. 

The solution is very stable. They have the flow language. We've been using it since version 6.0 and we haven't had any major issues. It's pretty seamless. 

For what we need, it scales quite well. We don't have to worry about having to scale too large as our organization, a bank, is not a very big bank. That said, scalability has never been a problem. 

It's a solution that is generally used by the IT department, not everyone in the company. Maybe between five and ten people use it in total. 

We have to use technical support sometimes. We do, for example, during migrations. We incorporated a business process from webMethods. We are now changing the process in terms of where we were using the database to control the business processes. It is more or less now using the RED METHODs PPM. When changes need to happen we contact them and work with them. 

While they do help, the documentation could be better. 

Positive

The initial setup is very simple and very straightforward. 

That said, open-source solutions are easier. However, we like to have a contractor come in and take care of everything.  

Everything to be set up must be done carefully and properly. Certain changes cannot be incorporated so easily. There might be certain dependencies across certain applications. We take a pretty careful approach every time we are migrating.

We had a third-party assist us with the implementation. It makes everything very easy.

I'm a user of the application. I don't directly handle the licensing. 

I'd warn potential users that, if you get into the ESB sort solution, once you get into it,  coming out of it is very difficult. The dependencies are very high and you are running it in the middle of your architecture. It becomes something you have to budget for and allocate every year. 

I'd rate the solution a seven out of ten due to the complicated installation process. 

In the API gateway, there is a new feature that allows us to filter logs within a payload. This has been a useful feature.

The configuring of the JWT token would be improved as it is a confusing process. We require more information on this part of the solution. 

This is a stable solution.

This is a scalable solution. 

The initial setup was straightforward and easy. 

 The pricing of this solution is reasonable. 

This solution is flexible and can be used across a number of projects. I have used it for banking and retail. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

The tool supports gRPC. It is the best product in the market.

The tool has its own proprietary language. It does not use Java or C#. The learning curve is a little steep at first. Once we get familiar with it, we might like to use it. The product must provide AI features to auto-generate logic based on our request.

I have been working with the product for more than 20 years.

The solution is scalable.

The technical support is good.

The product is easy to implement. We help our customers to implement the solution.

People who want to use the product must request a trial. Overall, I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

We use webMethods for integrating our applications.

The best part of webMethods is the out-of-box features that it provides to users, which ultimately saves on effort put into development.

All of the components are very independent but are tied together to give the business value.

The EDI is very eye-catching.

We have been having some non-technical, functional issues, which is why we're exploring other products.

The price should be reduced to make it more affordable.

I have been using webMethods for between 10 and 12 years.

The pricing and licensing costs for webMethods are very high, which is the only reason that we might switch to another product.

As we use webmethods, we continue to look for and research other products that are in the market. We have not decided if we are moving away from it yet, and there is no specific timeframe for making that decision, but we will continue to research alternatives.

Overall, it's a great product.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Our primary use case is for communication between different systems and automation of business processes.

It has enabled us to integrate some systems which needed a form of translation.

The most valuable components of the solution are API management and EDI.

The Flow language mapping tool could be a little easier to use. The interface needs improvement.

The technical support served its purpose. We do not need to use it much.

We used a different solution and we switched because it was a product that was being phased out.

We considered other solutions along with webMethods Integration Server, including BizTalk and Tibco. There were other solutions but they were outside our planned budget.

I would rate this product as an 8 or a 9 out of ten.

webMethods is primarily used to integrate applications. While one can always do the same by building APIs (Java, .NET, etc.), webMethods provides a robust, scalable, and easy to manage platform to do so.

The need is primarily felt when integrating multiple application for a large enterprise. To list a few, one can use webMethods to integrate web-based, file-based, database-based applications. Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg. It has multiple modules for specific integration types, like a Trading Networks module for business to business integrations, business process models for graphical representations for executing business processes. One can also build small Web-based application using CAF and DSP.

Given that you have one integration API in place, it takes very minimal effort to scale it to any other application that might want to use the same. Its flow-based development environment is a breeze and makes it really easy to re-use most of the existing components and build up a new API.

The second most important aspect is managing the components. 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.

I would say the core Web-based integrations work the best with webMethods. They are the most efficient and robust implementations one can do with webMethods. There have always been some ups and downs in its specialized modules, but I have found its core integration platform the most reliable.

The stability of the various modules of the product suite have been a bit of a concern lately. Though their support team is always easy to reach out to, I would prefer it not come to that.

• Capability to handle almost all e-business standards: RosettaNet, EDI, ebXML Messaging Service, SWIFT, FIX, and CIDX
• Web-based user interface: Makes administration and monitoring much easier
• Segregation of user tasks: Controlled user permissions and gives better control over the TN environment
• Clear view of transactions: Makes analysis and monitoring easier
• Capability to set up Trading Partner Agreements (TPAs): Makes business secure and more efficient

• We could set up all trading partners in one place with different data transfer protocols
• Makes the middleware environment more efficient
• Helps the admin team: Has a clear view on transactions and their processing status without digging into actual implementations

Configuration and interaction of trading partners in the TN with an ActiveTransfer product.

I have been using this solution for nine years.

New deployer could handle almost all deployment related task for TN components.

We had some minor issues with the EDIINT module which were resolved in the newer version.

We did not encounter any issues with scalability.

I would rate the technical support at quite a high level.

We did not use any other solution previously.

The setup was straightforward.

It is an add-on product to the webMethods product suite. The capability it offers is at a very good price.

We did not evaluate any other options as we already had the webMethods product suite. It was more logical to go for the SAG product.

It gives value for your money. It is easy to implement and maintain.

Typically, webMethods Server and Mediator is used as an ESB. webMethods platform is used to build an EAI platform, enabling communication between many internal systems and third-party operators.

In my opinion, the best advantages are: 

• platform scaling
• graphical data mapper (Designer and webMethods Developer in oldest versions)
• integration BPM process layer with services
• service management via packages.

Business monitoring (BAM) needs improvement because the analytics and prediction module very often has performance problems.

Additionally, this product has too many gaps. You find them after update installations. This should be covered by automatic testing.

Very often there have been stability issues, but typically the source of problems was in the IS configuration or deployed services. Many of problems exist only in AX system (IBM JRE).

No scalability issues. Typically, you can not scale the solution if it is not well designed (architecture, service layers, data processing).

I had some problems with the webMethods support team. They provide fixes very often but sometimes they do not work properly.

Yes, even currently I am using other suppliers' products. The main reason for this situation is that the solution was chosen by the company, and changing technologies is very expensive.

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

I think this is a very good and mature solution, but you have to be aware of the pricing. You can use an open-source solution and spend the money saved on licensing for a custom implementation.