webMethods.io Reviews

This solution is primarily used for protecting our APIs and web services. All of our APIs are exposed to the outside world, so our internal network is protected by the API gateway. Our landscape inside the company is also divided into different domains and if you go from one domain to another domain, we also want the APIs to be protected.

We have two servers with an API gateway and a load balancer in front of it.

We also use this solution for monitoring, to know how many transactions we have had and who is using our API. These are the runtime capabilities.

Another thing we use this product for is governance, to govern the lifecycle of our API services. It will tell us the state of the service, who is responsible for it, and what deliverables belong to that stage, and we also have some quality checkpoints inside the lifecycle.

With respect to the end-to-end lifecycle management of APIs, this product is very good, feature-wise. We have the ability to govern the end-to-end lifecycle; in the different states, we can do the necessary customization and add our own flavor. This helps us maintain it very well.

The API governance capabilities for enforcing standards and security policies are quite good. However, it is a new product that started a few years ago, and you can sometimes tell that it is new and still evolving. For example, there are some bugs and problems that are still being fixed as it is further developed. They are evolving the features and we are happy with the product, but there can be more issues that arise as things change.

These quality checkpoints allow us to have a central team that reviews the deliverables of the service. In the Design phase, for instance, we will review the REST API interface to see if it matches our standards.

This solution has enabled us to create new channels for growth because we can quickly introduce new APIs. Sometimes, you need to quickly set up a marketing campaign with an application that needs to happen fast. The API gateway allows us to introduce APIs that are still good and protected but in a fast way.

We have a good overview of all of our APIs, including who is providing them and who consuming them, which allows us to better work together to resolve issues before they emerge. For example, if there are changes made, we have a better view of the impact and the team can start discussing it. Also, if we are deprecating services and removing them, we know who is using these APIs and they can be contacted in advance.

Another important point is that when a new application wants to use an API, it can provide the necessary information such as the number of transactions. With this knowledge, the provider can adapt accordingly and it will be possible to add it.

Using the product has provided us with a structured API management program. Because we have governance and knowledge about all of the APIs, we have a better overview. Knowing who is using an API, or who is going to use it, means that it is easier to introduce new things.

This solution has given us a competitive advantage because we have better automation and insight. Without it, a lot of automation would not be possible, and doing it manually would take more time.

More generally, this API gateway has improved the way our organization functions because it allows us to enable more partner integrations. Until now, most of our business-to-business integrations were going over EDI. With API instead, it will allow us to onboard other partners. The reason for this is that EDI is a very heavy format, which is very expensive. As a retail company, EDI is affordable when you have a large vendor. But sometimes we have smaller vendors, and if we force them to use EDI, it will sometimes block the ability to sell products to us because they can't afford the complete functionality of sending invoices or receiving orders.

What we are now doing with API management is to make the order and invoicing systems available via API. These smaller vendors can then use these APIs to send an invoice or to receive an order.

The two most important features are the lifecycle and the protection of your APIs.

On the topic of protecting your APIs, every API management solution has that, which is the core business. Without it, you don't have an API gateway and it's the basic setup that every API management solution needs. Of course, protecting your APIs is very important.

With respect to the lifecycle, it is helpful because, in our business, we find it important to have an overview of all of our APIs and to guide our different roles, including architects and solution developers, in the necessary work for delivering a web service. Depending on the type of service, we also want to govern the quality. We don't do it for all APIs but for some categories, we find it very important that the quality is at a high level. This means that we want to govern that and review it.

In these aspects, this solution helps us.

In relation to the lifecycle features, the user interface and the performance can be improved. It is not the quickest application and the user interface is not the most up-to-date. It's a tool that has existed for quite some time, and there haven't been a lot of improvements.

With respect to the API gateway, the runtime component, and the stability after a new release is something that can be improved.

I have been working with the webMethods API Gateway for approximately five years.

Once the system is set up and configured properly, it's stable. We don't have outages and it runs very well.

There are two ways to scale this product, and both of them are easy to do. The first is to add another server to your cluster, and the second way is to add more CPU power.

I would rate the technical support medium-high. It is comparable with other companies; not worse, but not especially better.

In general, I am happy with the support but my complaints are about the timing. Specifically, if your issue can be handled by the first line then you get feedback quickly. However, if the issue is complex then it needs to go to R&D and it takes time. This is the same experience that I have with other companies.

Positive

We did not use another similar solution prior to this one.

The installation and initial setup are complex. It is not possible to just keep clicking the Next button during the setup. You need to configure the system such that it works best for your environment. You should plan for deployment over three to six months, at least.

My advice is to involve a consultant from Software AG to help you with the setup. Of course, this is an on-premises situation. In the cloud, I don't know how easy or difficult it is.

We have seen ROI from this product and we are able to determine this because of our internal accounting. When a project starts, we always calculate what our benefits are with respect to the technology. Taking into account the number of web services and APIs that we have, we're pretty sure that considering the cost of governance, this solution is better than if we were not using one.

This is not a cheap solution but, compared to other products such as those offered by IBM, the pricing is similar.

We did evaluate other options including IBM API Connect and Apigee. Feature-wise, these products are comparable.

Given that we were already using webMethods, using the API gateway had some benefits. There is value in staying with a single vendor, with the advantage that it is easier to integrate with other products in the webMethods stack.

We did not consider using any open-source alternatives.

This solution provides a fully customizable portal that has built-in testing capabilities, although we haven't implemented it yet. This is something that we are planning to do within the next couple of months.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to involve consultants who are familiar with it because they can help you to best set it up. Also, think about the process and steps in your governance because this is a workflow and you want to be sure that it follows the procedures that you have in place.

Overall, I'm happy with the product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

In my company, the solution is used for SAP Integration.

The connectivity that the tool provides, along with the functionalities needed for our company's business, are some of the beneficial aspects of the product.

The feature I found to be most beneficial or valuable for our company's workflows revolves around the area of the broker functionality provided by the product since it has reduced a lot of effort.

The main reason my company decided to replace webMethods.io Integration is because of the integration capabilities in the newer versions of the tool. Whenever there is a new version of webMethods.io Integrations, there is a lot of work to be done by our company since the newer versions don't offer seamless integration. The aforementioned reason can be considered for improvement in webMethods.io Integrations.

With the solution, our company has experienced sudden outages at times. The product's stability is an area of concern where improvements are required.

Not just the cost related to licensing but also the cost of introducing new versions need improvement in the product. When you have an OS like Windows or Apple, in which some new features are installed when you restart your system, after which everything works fine, with webMethods.io Integration, the new features introduced in the tool don't just need you to stop and restart your application but expects you to update the whole application to be able to use the new functionalities, which is something that is good. My company does a business in which we have to create a complete project which costs a lot of money. In the future, I expect to not be paying a lot of money or extra work to be able to update the product, and webMethods.io Integration needs to update the product automatically.

I have been using webMethods.io Integration for three years.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

It is not a very scalable solution.

As webMethods.io Integration is a middleware product, it is difficult to provide a number of the solution's users.

I work with many products other than webMethods.io Integration. It was not my decision to use webMethods.io Integration in our company.

The product's initial setup phase was straightforward, but it was a huge process.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

A technical team of eight members, including developers and administrators, is required to take care of the deployment and maintenance of the product.

The product's deployment process was carried out with the help of my company, DXC Technology.

The scenario where webMethods.io Integration is used to facilitate business process automation includes areas where data needs to be automated and integrated from SAP to third-party systems.

The solution helps me in my company with the integration area for some of the systems or applications, but we plan to replace it with another system.

I don't use the API management capability of the product to enhance your integration strategy.

I recommend the solution to those who plan to use the solution.

For my company's business operations, we use the tool's on-premises integration capabilities only.

I have noticed that the product works as expected, considering the fact that I have seen some improvements in areas like data management and quality since the implementation of the solution in our company.

Not just the cost related to licensing but also the cost of introducing new versions need improvement in the product. When you have an OS like Windows or Apple, in which some new features are installed when you restart your system, after which everything works fine, with webMethods.io Integration, the new features introduced in the tool don't just need you to stop and restart your application but expects you to update the whole application to be able to use the new functionalities, which is something that is good. My company does a business in which we have to create a complete project which costs a lot of money. In the future, I expect to not be paying a lot of money to be able to update the product, and webMethods.io Integration needs to update the product automatically.

I rate the overall product a six out of ten.

We use the solution for application-to-application integration and B2B integration.

The synchronous and asynchronous messaging system the solution provides is very good.

Other products have been using AI and cloud enhancements, but webMethods Integration Server is still lagging in that key area. It's very good as a standalone integration server, but it has to come up with more features in the cloud.

The solution's API management is slightly lagging, and its API policies could be improved.

I have been using webMethods Integration Server for 13 years.

I rate the solution a six out of ten for stability.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten for scalability.

The solution's initial setup is easy for an experienced person, but a new person may find it difficult to set up everything. There are too many features and components. The setup could be easier if the solution could merge everything in one suit.

The solution’s pricing is too high.

The solution has impacted our system's scalability and ability because it is quite good and pretty fast.

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

We use it to manage and secure APIs. It is particularly useful when dealing with a large number of APIs from various systems like banking, government validation, and more. It makes sure data is accurate and protected and helps systems work well together.

What I like the most about the solution is that it comes with ready-made tools like handling security tokens and OAuth. API Gateway does the hard work of keeping things secure and managing who can access what, making it easy and safe without lots of custom work.

One area for improvement in webMethods API Gateway is orchestration. Currently, API Gateway lacks built-in orchestration capabilities, so organizations may need to rely on other applications for this purpose. For example, if you are calling two services and one of them fails, you may need another application to handle the rollback or recovery process. Improving orchestration within API Gateway could simplify complex service interactions.

I have been using webMethods API Gateway for almost two years.

The technical support is a bit slow. It took them more than two weeks for a single ticket. I would rate it a seven out of ten.

Neutral

Setting up webMethods API Gateway can be easy or complex. It depends on what your company needs.

It is an expensive solution and not very suitable for smaller businesses.

My advice to people who are considering using the solution is to keep in mind that if you have a background in software development, especially with Java, you will likely find it easier to work with the platform. Overall, I would rate webMethods API Gateway an eight 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.

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.

I like the solution's policies, transformation, mediation, and routing features.

The product should provide more customization options. Application of policy management is not easy. We have to do a lot of customization and configuration. Documentation is also a problem. Understanding the overall architecture is difficult.

I have been using the solution for five years.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the scalability an eight out of ten. Ten people in my organization are using the solution.

I rate the ease of setup a seven out of ten. The installation is pretty much easy, but there are some obstacles. The interoperability of the components is not that easy.

The time taken for deployment depends on the knowledge of the people deploying the solution. Three to four people from our organization took about a month to set up the entire stack. It had a lot of components. It had an API portal, Command Central, CentraSite, Trading Networks, and Active Transfer.

I rate the pricing a ten out of ten. The product is very expensive.

I am using the latest version of the solution. The improvements depend on the vendors. MuleSoft has got different areas of improvement. Software AG has different areas of improvement. We are planning to move the product to the cloud. My advice for the product users depends on their business model, the scale of their business, how much volume they have, and what kind of transaction management they need. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

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.