webMethods.io Reviews

We've used webMethods mainly as a full-fledged DSP. We had use cases where all the USP use cases, the deployment pattern, were mainly service-oriented architecture. We had patterns arranged from web services, this protocol, and also transformation use cases to convert from XML to COBAL, or XML to external data on to task format and all the different formats, including limited format. We have used webMethods for all these use cases and even connectivity-wise, for web services, JMS and MQ.

From an organizational productivity perspective, before webMethods we had a different product. We were using another tooling from IBM. That had its own problems. Even though we had our own framework and an SOA-based architecture implemented properly, it was not scalable. Integration Server, from that perspective, actually helped us a lot. In the company, we had a lot of applications serving different protocols, and not all products give all features. Since Integration Server, we were able to customize it so we could use one product as a central item, whereas earlier, we had to rely on multiple products.

After the implementation of Integration Server, we could solve most of the connectivity issues. We did not have a problem even today. The implementation has been there for almost seven years now, and we don't have major problems, at least from the capability perspective. Whatever the product did not support, we had the flexibility to build our own frame, own adapters. From that perspective, it was a very good decision to go with this product.

From a user perspective, the feature which I like the most about Integration Server is its designer. If you compare it with other open-source platforms like Spring Boot, even though it is lightweight and you can customize the way you want it, as a programmer if you look at it, the designer is the major feature. You can write your logic with basic knowledge of, for example, programming languages like Java. You have that palette feature where you can plug and play and write the logic that you want. That's the feature I like most about webMethods. 

It's customizable. You can write your own adapters. We have customer adapters built on protocols like PCP, Plain PCP sockets, as well. You can write your own adapters framework.

The solution is scalable.

The solution can be buggy. If I compare it with IBM, before webMethods, we were using IBM DataPower. To be frank, DataPower had very, very minimal bugs. You may have one or two bugs in maybe a year, whereas with Integration Server, with customizations, it comes with all these caveats. We had to go back to support a bit for help.

Support is expensive. 

There is not any capability as a managed service. Maybe a managed service would help people to use it. Or apart from that, I would also say there is a containerized microservices version, yet it is not in a usable format. If you look at a Kubernetes environment, if you want to have a containerized application running in Integration Server, it's still quite very heavy. Maybe webMethods should look at that perspective as well to run a pure proper cloud-native environment. If you look at Spring Boot or maybe a similar open-source application, you can easily containerize and run Kubernetes. In Integration Server, it's not very easy.

I've been using it for around seven years right now.

The solution can be prone to bugs, especially if you customize it.

Performance-wise it was fine. We don't have any problem in that sense. Stability is related to the architecture and all that, so we had to federate it properly so we did not have any performance issues. 

When we started with Integration Server, it was around version 27 or something. Right now, it is around version 40. That's an indication of how many fixes there were. Certain headers were not supported. SSL handshakes had some performance issues and things like that. Those were the kinds of issues we dealt with.

The scalability of webMethods integration server is much greater than the solution we used previously, which was from IBM.

I have worked in applications that have millions of transactions coming in, so webMethods scales very well. We have performance tests done. With just one Integration Server, we could scale up to just one service, and 400 TPS are usually supported, or four under transactions per second. With the current implementation that we have, it has millions of users. We have around 100 developers in the company who have been using Integration Server directly.

Maybe five years back, the architecture model that we were following was maybe a service-oriented architecture. We are moving towards microservices right now. In terms of the Integration Server footprint, there is no plan to increase it further. 

We also don't have transformation requirements nowadays, since we are moving towards more API or driven-based architecture.

Support is good. Integration Server can be buggy, and we had to go back to the vendor after a bit. The support was very good, and we get the frequent fixes done. That said, the webMethods vendor support is costly.

Neutral

We were using IBM DataPower. It was good in that it did have fewer bugs. 

Before DataPower, we had one more product that was again from IBM. That was IBM WebSphere Message Broker. webMethods is far, far better than that from the capability perspective. 

From an implementation perspective, it's a heavy component. From an installing perspective, it is faster. That's not a problem. Installation-wise, there are a lot of dependencies. You need to have a database first set up, and then you need to have all that storage-related things set up, and then you have to install Integration Server on top of it. It takes time.

The current deployment that we have, it's all provisioned, and the CI/CD pipelines are all there. With Integration Server, you may not need to redeploy every time, it's an existing item. We have only three or four people deploying packages, so not more than that. That's mainly not related to webMethods, that's due to the maturity of the pipeline, so we don't have a lot of people there. From a support perspective, there are specialists there. It's a team of around ten members.

We do our deployments ourselves with support from the vendor in case there are any issues. The documentation is self-explanatory and it is quite descriptive; it has all the details on how we have to install it and what are the steps involved, so we can do it ourselves. You don't need any second person to help you. 

License-wise, we have seen good returns. However, five years back, the quality of engineers was better. We have since saw a dip in the quality of the engineer for the price service we pay, so recently the ROI is not that good.

I don't have full visibility on the licensing aspect. I know it is very expensive mainly due to the size of the company also. In that way, IBM, which we've used before, is also expensive. From a license cost perspective, it is cheaper than IBM. However, from a support perspective, the software is costlier than IBM. 

We needed specialized support from the software vendor. The engineering cost was too high.

I'm an end-user. Currently, I'm using the 10.3 version. Previously, I've used an 8.3 and as well as 9.5 as well. 

The version which I have been working on is deployed on the server. Recently, the organization is looking toward deploying it in the cloud as well. However, it's in the pipeline.

If you are looking for a full-fledged ESB, then Integration Server is one of the best choices, as it is highly customizable. So if it's an ESB, then you should go for it. If you're looking for a microservice-based architecture, then it may not be a good choice since it is very heavy. It's not easily deployable and is not cloud-native. And it does not come with all the pipeline capabilities like the CI/CD pipeline. It's all right to scratch. As a new company that is trying to implement that, if they're looking for cloud-native, it is maybe not the best choice. If they're looking for a full-fledged service-oriented architecture, a full-fledged ESB, then webMethods is the best choice.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

Clients choose webMethods.io API for its intuitive interface, promoting seamless interaction and quick communication between systems. The platform's focus on rapid deployment expedites time-to-market, while robust governance features ensure control and compliance. Particularly appealing to less mature clients in API management, it offers a strategic toolset for gradual integration advancement, providing both immediate benefits and a pathway for long-term growth.

A potential drawback of webMethods.io API is its adaptability to legacy systems, which can vary in compatibility. This becomes evident when dealing with diverse products within a client's portfolio, requiring significant time and resources for API integration. The challenge lies in the need for a robust team and cost optimization to bridge the gap between legacy systems and modern API standards. Additionally, the time and effort involved in transforming products into API-ready formats can be a limiting factor. While the platform offers comprehensive solutions, addressing these challenges requires careful consideration and a modular approach for optimal results.

I have been working with webMethods.io API for a year.

webMethods.io API is stable, but its maturity may not meet all customer expectations due to the challenges of dealing with large legacy systems. Achieving optimal results takes time and gradual refinement as the platform evolves to address these considerations. I would rate the stability as a seven out of ten.

Scalability is webMethods.io API's strong point. The solution is designed to scale seamlessly, offering flexibility from small to medium and up to enterprise-level clients.

The tech support from webMethods is solid, and I would rate it at nine out of ten.

Positive

The installation of webMethods.io API is flexible, offering options for both on-premise and cloud deployment. The customer has the capability to choose either based on their preferences and security requirements. However, a crucial condition for product ownership is having your own cloud infrastructure. Without this, selling the solution may face challenges due to country-specific regulations. It is not just a customer requirement but a regulatory necessity to align with the country's guidelines. The deployment time for webMethods.io API varies based on the scope. For upgrades, it typically takes six to eight months, while total implementations can range from 12 to 18 months. The number of engineers and architects needed depends on factors like chosen modules, domains, and the scale of customer service, ranging from thousands to millions. Once deployed, maintenance is relatively easy.

The solution is on the expensive side in terms of pricing. It follows a yearly licensing model. Clients typically pay for the license only if they have the internal capacity for implementation. However, for a more comprehensive approach, clients often opt for additional services, including implementation, maintenance, and support from the vendor's side, especially when the scale of the project requires a more hands-on approach.

Before choosing webMethods, it is crucial to assess your organization's skill set. The solution is powerful and scalable, especially for large enterprises, but smaller businesses might find it challenging both in terms of cost and resource availability. It is a robust choice for those with substantial needs and the capability to leverage its features effectively. Understanding your organization's scale and capabilities is key to making the most of what webMethods has to offer. Overall, I would rate webMethods.io API as a nine out of ten.

The webMethods API Gateway is utilized to assist our banking clients in integrating with the bank via the API.

The solution has helped improve our organization by recommending APIs and providing easy-to-use security controls. Additionally, it identifies similarities between multiple cases, thereby avoiding redundant code and implementation.

The developer portal is a valuable feature.

The gateway server itself can improve the message queue implementation by considering the top ten web security controls.

I would like to request the integration of response caching into the memory database, which would eliminate the need to construct logic within the API itself, and instead implement it directly in the gateway.

The price has room for improvement.

I have been using webMethods API Gateway for a couple of years.

I give webMethods API Gateway a ten out of ten for stability.

I give webMethods API Gateway a seven out of ten for scalability. We can scale the solution, but it is a bit complicated since it is not saved in a Microsoft architecture, which would make scaling much simpler.

We previously used Open API and Google Apigee but our organization technically and commercially preferred to go with webMethods API Gateway.

I give the initial setup a seven out of ten. The deployment took a couple of weeks. The deployment required one solution architect and two technical consultants.

The implementation was completed by Software AG.

The price is high and I give it a five out of ten.

I give webMethods API Gateway a seven out of ten.

We currently have 40 people and four developers using webMethods API Gateway.

We plan to increase our usage tenfold within the next few years.

I would advise a POC to see if there is a business case. I suggest starting small and scaling out as required.

There are many use cases for webMethods ActiveTransfer, but the main focus for us is transferring files internally between applications or externally between partners. From a technical point of view, it can be seen a tool for file transfer for A2A (application-to-application), and from a market model point of view, it's also a B2B (business-to-business) tool. In terms of extras, it includes an engine for translation, which comes as an add-on, so that customers can translate files as they send or receive them from external partners. We could, of course, also create a custom interface in order to allow physical users to perform file transfer, but this is not a common use case.

Using webMethods ActiveTransfer, we can create rules for automatic application-to-application file transfers, and one of our customers in Italy is even using it for both file transfers and as an ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) as part of their supply chain infrastructure where there is a very high volume of messages being exchanged (thousands and thousands of messages per day).

If the customer's infrastructure is complex, with high-availability clusters and so on, then we often have to implement not only the basic use case, but also consider other business cases as well, such as in our Italian customer's situation where ActiveTransfer must additionally communicate with their order management orchestrator and other parts of their infrastructure.

There are offerings for deployment on cloud or hybrid as well, but most of the customers who have around 1,000 employees prefer the solution to be situated on-premises.

The core product can be used not only for automatic file transfers between applications, but also as an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB). Internally, it's easy to exchange messages between applications because they have decent integrations of message protocols whether you're using a REST API or MQ. Thus, its core functionality is highly compatible with different methods of exchanging messages between applications.

On the whole, it's a very good product being all at once easy to use, easy enough to install, and easy to deploy new workflows and so on.

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.

I have been working with webMethods ActiveTransfer for four years. In the beginning I was working directly with the product, handling technical aspects, and now I am in more of a managerial role, managing teams in the implementation of new projects.

For the most part, it's very stable and I would give it 4/5 stars.

The stability issues only arise in more extreme cases, such as when the file sizes are too large for the infrastructure to handle, or when the infrastructure is not well designed. And sometimes the problems are simply due to the fact that there isn't adequate performance on the other machine. In my books, the processing time for a 20 MB file should be measured in milliseconds or seconds, not minutes.

It's scalable, but my rating would only be 3/5 stars for this aspect. In general, the scaling is easy to implement when it comes to adding more resources to a machine, but when adding new nodes and so on, it's definitely not as easy as its competitors. There's a lot of manual activities that must be done, and it's not just a simple matter of running some scripts to start a cluster with new nodes.

This is, of course, the on-premises version I am talking about. I have not yet worked on the hybrid solution, though from what Software AG has sent me, it seems a lot easier because it deals with containers rather than nodes.

We don't have any major issues with their support, but more often than not they take a very long time to answer. Because I work frequently with the sales team and other highly technical staff on their side, I eventually manage to solve most of the issues we come across by talking with them instead of support.

So most of the time, we do have our problems solved, but typically not with the speed and precision that we need.

Neutral

In terms of initial setup, It's easy enough and I would rate the process 4/5 stars.

How many engineers and other staff we need for deployment is always based on customer requirements, of course. For a simple business case comprising a non-complicated infrastructure with only a standard load node for production and a standard load node for staging, webMethods ActiveTransfer can be installed and set up by just one engineer within three or four days.

If the infrastructure is more complex, with high-availability clusters and multiple business cases to be implemented, then the deployment can extend over two or three weeks under the care of a senior staff member. 

From a service point of view, the staff needed for deployment, maintenance, and support also depends on the SLA with the customer. For example, one of our customers in Italy uses webMethods ActiveTransfer not only as a file transfer system, but also as an ESB that is integrated with their supply chain infrastructure. In this case, keeping ActiveTransfer up and running is critical and we must provide extended support with two people from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM, and then another two people from 4:00 PM to midnight.

The ROI differs for each customer. As an integrator in Turkey, we see that if the customer is going to use webMethods ActiveTransfer to integrate multiple different business cases, the ROI is quite good, and it can be a positive ROI in only a matter of months.

In other cases, if the customer purchases a large amount of infrastructure in order to implement multiple workflows, but for internal reasons they have to move slowly, then over time the ROI is much greater.

However, it's very difficult to give an estimate on ROI because it depends so much on each individual customer. It's a good, complete product, but it's not cheap. In fact, it's among the top three or four most expensive platforms on the market and for this reason it's not always ease to achieve a very high ROI.

The licensing depends on the type of customer, so I would refrain from talking about it in an absolute kind of way. Overall, it's somewhat expensive, and depending on customer requirements, there are different types of licensing that can be useful, or not so useful.

Their licensing options are a mix with some variety between them. Normally, the on-premises license is a perpetual license, where the customer purchases the licensing once and then in following years only has to pay for the support. However, they have also included other licensing structures in which you can choose your licenses according to the number of users or the specifications of the machine that it will be running.

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. In times like these, we can only tell them that it depends on your use case, and this isn't always the answer they want to hear. 

During my career I have worked with a lot of different products and I generally only go on to work with those products that I feel are worth being called good products. We also work with IBM and Primeur, and I can say that webMethods ActiveTransfer is a very good product. It's easy to use, and easy enough to install and deploy new workflows.

At the same time, since we have been having numerous issues with their support in terms of response times, I must say that if their support doesn't improve, we may eventually have to stop promoting this product to our customers.

I would rate webMethods ActiveTransfer an eight out of ten.

We use ActiveTransfer to call internal APIs and transfer files from a third party to the cloud for application purposes and from a third party to on-prem. We also send files to the third party sometimes. We have a payments system and transfer files across the system to make customer domains.

We have on-prem, cloud, and hybrid deployments and transfer files across all of them. We're working with webMethods cloud, AWS, and Azure. Our eight-member team is using webMethods MFT and other integrations, and we have a shared team to work on multi-technologies, like web issues, Snowflake, webMethods MFTs, etc. 

ActiveTransfer lets us maintain the file in the staging area before we transfer it. After that, we can remove the file to make sure that the reconciliation process is done. Sometimes we will zip and unzip the files, but if we have a GKB file, we often ignore it. 

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. 

Also, when we're dealing with massive files, ActiveTransfer requires huge amounts of RAM, but if would be helpful if we could customize the compression and encryption to squeeze that data and reduce the size to save on system resources.

We have been using ActiveTransfer for six or seven years.

ActiveTransfer is stable.

ActiveTransfer is easy to scale and use also, which is why we recommend it. We have a script-based file transfer, but we use it less compared to MFT.

webMethods' technical support is excellent. When we have issues with third parties, networks, corrupted files, etc. we send the logs and they take care of it.

The difference between webMethods and Control-M is that Control-M schedules automation tools and checks to see if the file is there. Our team is currently using Control-M. 

If you use MFT and you've cleared the MFT events, it has to schedule through Control-M because all the jobs running through the solution end to end. Control-M has an AMF advance remain file transfer, where you can create a source and target profile.

Setting up ActiveTransfer is straightforward. I rate it eight out of 10 for ease of setup. As for maintenance, we have a monitoring mechanism in place and an automated process for large-scale transfer. If the current available space at the target is less than 30 percent, we have an alert.

We do it all in-house based on the customer's request. We'll keep all the files in the staging for one week. If necessary, we will remove it or move it to some other location. This kind of housekeeping and maintenance we do.

I'm not aware of the exact cost. That product team at my company is responsible when we need any maintenance, new products, upgrades, etc. 

I rate webMethods ActiveTransfer eight out of 10. They only need to improve a few minor things to bring it to the current market standard. My recommendation to webMethods is to add more flexibility to the file-watching mechanism to reduce the load on the RAM and CPU to a minimum, which will help when we are dealing with large numbers of massive files, especially in the retail environment.

We used to deal with millions of small files. When you are dealing with these kinds of files, you need to ensure that there is an internal reconciliation process. When you're reading and transferring thousands of files, you use a parallel instead of sequential mechanism to ensure all the files reach a target and that the reconciliation process is done automatically.

Most of our customers are real estate development companies, and they build many projects in Saudi Arabia. Most of their projects are about Smart Cities or Smart destinations. The use case was about integrating different Smart City technologies and enterprise applications. For government services, the use case was integrating webMethods.io Integration into different government systems serving residents. For example, the Ministry of Interior uses the solution for passport and ID services, so different government systems are integrated.

We used webMethods.io Integration as an integration platform. It accommodates Enterprise Service Bus, integration server and API gateway. We took the complete platform and the integration server as part of the platform to integrate or receive data from the API gateways, integrated with the Enterprise Service Bus.

The solution allowed us to integrate applications and IoT devices because it has an IoT event processing layer. It provides a flexible integration within the IoT systems because most of the applications we work with are related to the IoT and Smart City technologies. So, there's hardware, software and application integration, providing hosting flexibility.

Some platform providers host their applications in Amazon AWS or Microsoft Azure, which sometimes creates challenges for data governance because of regulations.

Any solution needs continuous development in integration and processing.

We used the solution for more than a year for different projects. We used the latest version and stopped using it four months ago. It was deployed on private cloud in the customer cloud infrastructure.

The solution is stable. If there were any minor problems, we resolved them.

It can be scaled up and support multi-tenancy. However, it is difficult to maintain.

I rate the technical support a six out of ten.

The initial setup was straightforward.

They don't have a fixed price, and the pricing model is transaction-based. I rate the pricing a seven out of ten, with one being the worst and ten being the best.

I rate this solution a seven out of ten. I recommend it, but it depends on the use case. I do not see any gaps with the platform.

Our primary use case for webMethods Integration Server is for our internal application integration. We use it to expose REST and SOAP web services and to connect it with SAP.

We also use it as a bridge to transform web service calls. We'll use an ESB if we want to transform the protocol or the message. It's also used to connect our internal custom-written Java applications with products like SAP, which don't have an open standards interface.

We only use it on-premise. We are considering going to a hybrid setup but at the moment, we don't have it yet. Nevertheless, we still use the Integration Server to integrate our cloud applications. We only have cloud on-premise integrations and not cloud-to-cloud. That is also why we're not focusing on a hybrid setup.

Integration Server does our business-to-business integrations. It does all of our EDI integrations of passing over our Integration Server and our LAN connects to our internal applications.

Its adapters and connectors provide the fastest way to build an integration. We don't need to create our own implementations because we can use the adapters. We can immediately connect to the backend systems without creating a lot of our own custom code by using these adapters.

The vendor's full support for Integration Server's adapters and connectors brings long-term stability to our services because if something changes to the backend application, we don't need to bother with it. Software AG just adapts the adapter and we get a new version. It's much easier working this way.

Deploying a new application is rather easy. You need a deployer and to build a system. We have built something around it to add it to our continuous integration pipeline, but we have the necessary tools to test our production environments.

We use the same system to modify or redeploy these integrations. If we have a bug we'll adapt our codes and deploy a new version. The code changes need the most time. If it's a small code change, then it goes very quickly. If it's an important bug, it'll take more time. The deployment and build don't take a lot of time.

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.

Using an adapter is quite easy. For example, the SAP adapter works very well, and connecting to custom applications is very easy.

We would use MQTT when we need to connect to IoT devices. For the other legacy apps, in most cases, we use the adapters. Acquiring an adapter is quite easy.

Integration Server provides us with application integration, data integration, business-to-business communications, APIs, and microservices. Internally we don't use it for data integration, but it is possible. We don't work with microservices but I know that it's also possible.

It is important to us that Integration Server offers us a broad range of features like application, data integration, and API. It's important to have that kind of broad setup because it's a service burst. It's in the middle of a lot of integrations. It has to be able to have a lot of features

In terms of improvement, it would be better if it adapted quicker to open standards. It took a while for API specification before the last version was available. The spec of version two was rather quick. 

With an integration platform, it sometimes needs to happen faster because you sometimes have clients or providers that already use new specifications.

I have been using webMethods Integration Server since 2011. 

I am very satisfied with stability. It's very stable, we haven't had any issues at all.

We had a lot of issues with our other solution but none with Integration Server.

There are many scalability options, it is possible to add core CPUs to your server or you can add additional servers. Both are possible, both are not complex. The only thing that you need to take into account is then the licensing, but there are no technical issues for scalability.

Technical support is okay. It's comparable with other companies. It of course depends on the kind of issue that you have, but I'm rather satisfied with their support.

We were using IBM before webMethods. We used a combination of the two. When we started we had both webMethods Integration Server only for B2B. We used WebSphere Enterprise Service Bus for internal application integration. It's easier to have only one. That is the reason that we chose one of both. The second reason was also that IBM was deprecating their product and asking to switch to another one. Instead of going through IBM, we figured we could do everything with webMethods which is why we completely switched over.

webMethods had a very good overview of all transactions. That was the main reason we went with them.

The initial setup was of medium complexity. It's new so you need to learn it. A tool like this is never easy. webMethods Integration Server was easier than a different solution that we were using. But it's not a walk in the park. You need to spend time on it. There are configuration settings that can't be avoided. It's a complex feature set. We have had more complex systems also in our landscape. It's not just "click, click, click, done."

I was not involved in the initial deployment. But I know that they upgraded to webMethods Integration Server in a month. It took a few months to learn everything in the system.

We worked with a consultant for the deployment. We worked with a consultant from Software AG which went well. We have also worked with other consultants from consultancy companies that were not directly linked to Software AG but work with a lot of Software AG products. They helped us to set up our webMethods products.

I don't think webMethods is the cheapest but I think the quality is worth it. But it's not cheap.

We're satisfied with our choice and the price is not a reason to look for something else.

It's wise to work with a consultant when you introduce Integration Server because you need to learn about the product. It's better to have advice from someone who already has experience with it.

I would rate webMethods Integration Server an eight out of ten. I'm quite happy and satisfied with it but nothing is perfect.

We had multiple integrations in our internal applications. The webMethods Integration Server is integrated internally, plus we have integrated it with external entities depending upon SOAP, and REST. Additionally, there is some legacy system we have connectivity with.

The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is the built-in monitoring, auditing, RETS, and SOAP services.

I have been using webMethods Integration Server for approximately two years.

webMethods Integration Server is stable.

The scalability of the webMethods Integration Server is good. You can scale out by purchasing extra licenses in the new nodes.

We provide a public service, we have more than 1,000 users using this solution.

The support is good but they could improve by being faster and more knowledgeable. I only have one incident in which I needed support. However, I fixed it myself because it was taking too much time for the agent to understand my issue. The agent was not able to handle the issue. During the communication, I found out about the issue, and I fixed it myself.

I rate the support of webMethods Integration Server a four out of ten.

We were using MuleSoft previously. We move to webMethods Integration Server because there was no local presence for MuleSoft.

The initial setup of the webMethods Integration Server is not easy but it gets easier once you know it. It is tiresome but not difficult.

We deployed webMethods Integration Server for our development and staging, and then we moved on to production. Regarding development and staging, there are single servers for production and we have multiple nodes for each.

We did the deployment of the webMethods Integration Server in-house. We have a team of eight that does the deployment and support of the solution. One is an administrator for the management and the others are developers.

webMethods Integration Server has a very good API gateway. It will help your development become easier, because most of the services, we do not have to make any extra changes. We can do it by the gateway. I recommend that the portal which is on the front-end be the gateway, and on the back-end is the integration service.

I rate webMethods Integration Server an eight out of ten.