webMethods.io Reviews

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.

We don't use webMethods Integration Server directly, but we use another offering from one of our vendors. They have built a layer on top of the webMethods Integration Server and that's a solution we have been using.

webMethods Integration Server is the underlying component, but our software vendor, has made some enhancements to the webMethods Integration Server and they offered it to us. That's what we are currently using along with some of the other solutions in the supply chain space.

Their offering is more of an integration framework across all their systems and this is how we have been using the system. webMethods Integration Server is our primary integration tool across all the solutions that we have in our supply chain.

The most valuable feature of webMethods Integration Server is all the capabilities it provides. We leverage most of the features, that they have offered to us. Our vendor has made some additional features on top of the webMethods Integration Server and we use all the features together.

webMethods Integration Server could improve on the version control. I'm not sure if Web Method has some kind of inbuilt integration with Bitbucket or GitHub or some kind of version control system. However, that's one area where they can improve. 

The migration of the code between environments could be better. If they come up with some kind of a continuous integration process to promote the code from one life cycle to the other, that may ease the day-to-day activity for us.

I have used webMethods Integration Server for approximately seven years.

webMethods Integration Server is a stable solution for our usage.

The scalability of the webMethods Integration Server is good.

Our IT team is using the solution in my organization.

We plan to increase our usage in the future.

I have not needed to use webMethods Integration Server support.

We used other solutions before using webMethods Integration Server.

The maintenance team needed for webMethods Integration Server is minimal.

We have seen a return on investing using webMethods Integration Server.

I rate our return on investment for webMethods Integration Server a four out of five.

The solution has been doing the job for us, at least with respect to the landscape and the integrations we have in place. However, it is on a case-by-case basis.

I rate webMethods Integration Server an eight out of ten.

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.

The solution's most valuable features are web services, XML transformations, and adapters.

The solution's release management and JSON services need improvement.

We have been using the solution for 20 years.

The solution is stable. I rate the solution's stability a nine out of ten.

The solution is scalable. We have enterprise customers using the solution. I rate its scalability a nine out of ten.

The solution's technical support needs improvement. It could be more accessible in terms of communication.

Neutral

The solution is easy to set up. I rate the process a seven out of ten. It takes two months to complete. 

I recommend the solution to others and rate it an eight out of ten. It works fast and is easy to adapt.

The primary use case of the solution is for our digital sale tool.

I really appreciate the form and application that indicate the API. 

The performance is good.

I would like the solution to provide bi-weekly updates.

I have been using the solution for seven years.

The solution is sustainable and stable.

The solution is on the cloud therefore it is scalable.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

I recommend the solution to others.

We had quite a heavy use case in terms of transactional traffic, and webMethods was quite fantastic in processing all of those workloads.

Some of the key features are the integration platform, query mechanism, message handling within the bus, and the rules engine. We've had a really good experience with webMethods Integration Server.

On the monitoring side of things, the UI for monitoring could be improved. It's a bit cumbersome to work with.

I've been using webMethods Integration Server for about five years.

The current version is in our private cloud, and we implemented the same solution on-premises and in the cloud. So, we have implemented a hybrid solution.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We implemented it through an in-house team, and it took about four weeks.

There are no hidden costs in addition to the standard licensing fees for webMethods.

For corporate organizations, it's a very cheap or fairly priced product, but for growing or small businesses, it's quite expensive. These businesses would probably need to consider an enterprise services bus at some point. Thus, from a pricing point, it closes out non-cooperate businesses.

A slightly watered down version would be nice so that small, growing businesses could afford it.

We tried to use Oracle, and it just didn't do it for us. We explored MuleSoft, but it was a little bit expensive because of their pricing model, which is per transaction. So, it was also not a viable option for us.

You just need to find the right skills. In our country, we don't have people with qualified webMethods skills, so that's a problem for us in terms of resources. Depending on where you are from and if you don't deal with resource scarcity, webMethods could be a good option for you.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate webMethods at eight. 

By linking apps and services, the webMethods Integration Server allows you to automate processes.

I like the stability of the webMethods Integration Server.

I would like to see the price improve.

I have been working with webMethods Integration Server for eight years.

We are currently using version 10. x.

webMethods Integration Server is quite stable, especially given the amount of load it has been handling.

webMethods Integration Server is a scalable solution.

In general, I contact technical support if we are experiencing any problems. They are extremely helpful.

Previously, I had not used another solution.

The installation is straightforward. It's easy.

It can take thirty minutes to deploy depending on the number of components.

It can be installed both on-premises and in the cloud. It has been migrated to the cloud, and we also use it on-premise.

You can complete the installation yourself.

I would like to see better pricing for the license.

We are researching cloud-based solutions, such as AWS and MuleSoft.

I am a user, so I'm not entirely familiar with everything this solution has to offer. I am utilizing one of the technologies that they provide.

Using this solution is dependant upon each area's perspective. I can't exactly say, if you had only one user that it's only for this solution or that solution, but it actually depends upon each other's perspectives.

WebMethods is the recommended solution if you want a stable integration, an ESB platform, and a B2B.

I am unfamiliar with cloud-based solutions or their environment. We are exploring their options and services.

I would rate webMethods Integration Server a nine 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.