webMethods.io Reviews

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.

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.

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.

We use it for our ERP systems. It is a middleware tool that we use to connect two systems and the outside partners.

It is good for communicating between the systems and for publishing and subscribing. We can easily retrieve data. It is good in terms of troubleshooting and other things.

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.

I have been using this solution for four years.

There have not been any stability issues.

It is not that much scalable. We have around ten people who are using this solution. Only the integration team uses this solution. Other teams have the ERP system.

It is easy to get support. When we posted a query or some issues, they got back to us. They are responsive and knowledgeable.

It is straightforward and easy. You have the documentation, which is easy to follow.

Based on our team discussions and feedback, it is pretty costly because they charge us for each transmission.

I would rate webMethods API Portal a seven out of ten.

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.

Ease of implementation and flexibility to hold the business logic are the most valuable features.

We have used webMethods because of its ubiquitous nature to talk to various technology platforms. Also, the solution had a finite life, webMethods provided a quick integration solution since it is relatively easier to implement, and also, it can hold the business logic in itself.

The client was planning to go in for a separate data exchange platform/Business Information Warehouse as a large-scale global project slated to be alive after five years.

It helped to improve the efficacy of production planning to the market demands and it has improved the quality due to faster information on quality issues.

Mostly, an improvement is needed in the product's documentation.

The documentation deficiencies were in the following areas; since it has been a while, I could recall the top instances where the escalation reached to my level.

wM SAP Adapter User Guide - Example, like Message Broker setup was unclear, leading to issues during Testing and we had refer the internet forums to understand that there is a Message Broker Cleanup utility and that needs to be setup as well.

Release Notes: Used to cover only the latest update for the SAP changes. What has been done to the older version (SAP R/3 4.6, etc.) were not mentioned.

I have used this solution for nearly a year.

In 2008, the technical support's response time was much longer than expected.

There was an implementation issue, i.e., some of the preconditions were not clearly mentioned, so we had to dig through multiple options to troubleshoot and find the right steps.

It was an Enterprise license and I am not sure of the current status.

We evaluated TIBCO.

Put the business first, consider the business architecture and requirements before deciding to go with webMethods. Today, there are multiple open-source, cheaper solutions like Talend available and we can consider those as well.

I must be blunt. The solution is really hard to use, as the manual and documentation fail to provide proper explanations, especially to people who are first time users of webMethods, Software AG. I struggle with the installation. I sometimes think that the Integration Server is fine and that I had no problem with the API gateway, only to find myself having to redo this, as I lack a dedicated person who can instruct us on installation. I must rely on the Software AG forum. 

The installation process should be simplified for first time users and be made more user-friendly. 

I started using webMethods Integration Server around a month ago. 

I do not have the privilege of contacting technical support, so I try to make use of the information on the internet to self-learn. 

Prior to webMethods Integration Server, we worked with TIBCO BusinessWorks. This we did for another client. As some of the prospect companies already use webMethods Integration Server, we decided to undertake learning its use. 

The installation process should be improved for first time users, as it is quite difficult, and it should be made more user-friendly. 

I cannot comment on the pricing, as this is in the purview of my boss, from whom I received access to download the product. My role is solely to explore the solution's capabilities. 

There are five people, myself included, who are involved in learning about the solution for the initial project. 

A person who plans to use the solution should purchase a license or subscription, so that he will have someone to instruct him on its use. Operationally, I consider the solution to be quite good. I am referring to the PSR involving the middle integration service development. All the features seem to be there, including SSIS, SQL Server Integration Service and UI. There is a need for much scripting of it. On the development side, webMethod is quite good.

As the solution is good overall, I rate it as an eight out of ten. 

How simple it is to create new solutions.

It is an integration platform, so it has improved my organization by giving it one common platform to work with multiple systems.

12 years.

Yes, somewhat.

In terms of scale, I would give it a four out of 10.

Yes. I was sent to a different company, and due to this, I switched solutions that I was working in. The company hasn't switch integration platforms since I have been working in this position (almost 10 years).

I was in the company when they only started with webMethods. It used to be a very simple solution used for a few integrations. Now, it is much more complex. We've got many more frameworks, multiple countries, much more services, etc.

I'm not involved in this.

The company evaluated that. I wasn't included in this. Also, we did another evaluation a few years back when the company was wondering if we shouldn't switch to a different solution. We stayed with webMethods.