webMethods.io Reviews

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'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.

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.