webMethods.io Reviews

We use it mainly for policy implementation and securitization when we're exposed outside the internet.

They should develop clear visibility for the onboarding. They could also improve the clustering.

We have been using this solution for three years.

it is a stable solution.

It is scalable and can adapt to third-party integration. We have more than 500 users.

I've worked with MuleSoft, and webMethods API Gateway is the most stabilized tool with a robust integration server. It's a good tool, and it has a stable messaging broker. In addition, from the infra point of view, it is always compliant and not complex. You can integrate everything with webMethods API Gateway.

The initial setup was straightforward and not complex. I rate the setup an eight out of ten.

I do not have details about the pricing. However, it is cheaper than APG.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are using it to orchestrate and configure our APIs.

I believe we are using its latest version.

We needed a tool that was able to orchestrate and help us configure our APIs so that we could maintain and see the heartbeat, traffic, trends, etc.

A while ago, they were hacked, and it took them a very long time to open their website again in order to download any service packs or any features. I don't know what they could do differently. I know that they were vulnerable, and there was some downtime, but because they were down, we were unable to download any potential service packs.

I have been using this solution for about three years.

I would rate it an eight out of 10 in terms of stability and scalability.

We used Dollar Universe or Dollar U. It was more for batch scheduling. We didn't have anything for maintaining, configuring, or hosting our APIs. It was more of a manual process before that.

It is a little complex, but we're okay with that. MuleSoft is obviously the Cadillac and the best of the best, but we just didn't want to pay that sort of price for what MuleSoft can do.

We partnered with our implementation partner to do the install for us. 

Its maintenance is more of a shifting of duties. There are no new FTEs for it. It is just a shifting of duties.

I signed a three-year deal with them. It is a yearly locked-in price for the next three years.

I was the architect of it, and I wasn't personally the one who went deep into it. My advice would be to just partner with an implementation team and make sure that things are documented so that for upgrades, you're not married to them, and you don't have to use them all the time.

I would rate it an eight out of 10.

webMethods Trading Networks is a good solution for interacting with outside of the organization. We can integrate the solutions with multiple outside the organization. 

We can create multiple users and different types of documents. The same document type we can process to the different kinds of partners. They are reusable, we can map to the respective document type.

I have been using webMethods Trading Networks for approximately eight years.

I have found webMethods Trading Networks to be stable.

webMethods Trading Networks is scalable.

For smaller organizations, I would suggest they use the rest APIs and the API gateway approach.

Technical support is very good and user-friendly. For example, if any B2B interface fails we can easily go into the My webMethods Server, where we can see all of the transactions. There we can find the document type or the partner name or receiver's name. If they provide an invoice number, we can use that invoice number, to find the logs to investigate the issue. Additionally, we can find out the resolution after our investigation.

We had a good experience setting up webMethods Trading Networks, it was simple. We did not face any large challenges. However, My webMethod completely depends on the backend table. That table should be properly installed. If it is properly installed, there are no problems configuring My webMethod server.

webMethods Trading Networks is a bit costly compared to others solutions.

This is a good solution for EDA integrations, I would recommend it.

I rate webMethods Trading Networks a nine out of ten.

It interfaces between applications, as well as between the cloud and our existing on-prem applications.

We primarily utilize packaged applications; we don't really have a lot of custom applications. We do have a few custom interfaces, and some vendors may have created a custom interface on their own, but we present a standard integration, a standard enterprise service bus, to connect to.

We're able to secure our front-end website away from our back-end systems using Integration Server. It acts as a go-between. That way, whether we're requesting things from our website or our IBR or our IPT, we can have multiple interfaces. They're secured in their own ways, and they don't have direct access to our back-end databases.

We're a utility company and before we got this application we would actually send out people to the meters to read them. Sometimes they had handheld devices, but sometimes they had to walk up to the meters. When we switched to AMI meters, we leveraged the ability of the solution to talk to each of the meters on a daily basis, as well as to turn a meter on and off in real time.

Additionally, we use the same application to process payments. Before this solution, we primarily had walk-in centers and a lot of manual processes for receiving payments. Very few payments were done online or via eCheck. Now we can have a whole host of payment options, as well as enable different payment vendors to connect. It has automated a lot of our manual processes.

webMethods Integration Server provides a single hybrid integration platform for all our needs. It provides reusability. We don't have to worry about taking each and every point-to-point integration. Now we are hosting a true enterprise service bus, by having a set of APIs that can really be leveraged and reused by multiple vendors and multiple connectors.

Its adapters and connectors provide the fastest way for us to build an integration. We're able to turn things around pretty quickly. I'm sure there are other faster ways that other people have done, but this meets our needs. 

It's helped us to become more modern. It's allowed us to service our customers in the ways that they want. They can now use on-the-phone payments or website payments or whatever way they want to do it.

Internally, it provides a standard way for us to be able to interface with things. Now, we don't have to have unique ways to do so and much more code and numerous ideas on how to do things. We just end up having a standard.

It provides us with ease of modifying and redeploying integrations. We have been able to do that very successfully. It just makes it easier. We were able to put in an Agile framework, which means that as requirements come up and changes are made, we're able to schedule them on a regular basis. But we were doing that for the long-term before, as well.

Its support for the latest standards make it possible to plug in modern tooling. We've used that in several places, especially for IoT integrations. The result has been reduced costs and improved customer satisfaction.

The most valuable feature is its ability to quickly spin up connections between the real-time interfaces, as well as being able to regulate how much traffic moves back and forth between applications. This is important because one of the things that we utilize it for is payments from our customers. We can have multiple customers utilizing the same set of APIs and they can make real-time payments into our system, which is really useful. We don't have to worry about people making duplicate payments or providing incorrect information. And we get that information right away.

Also, the solution has a very comprehensive and versatile set of connectors. I've been able to utilize it for multiple, different mechanisms. We do a lot of SaaS and we do have IoT devices and the solution is comprehensive in those areas. There's a standard utility protocol for talking and several of the applications we have utilize that utility. It's a standard set of APIs, and Integration Server adapted to that right away. For our website we're utilizing standard Wisdom APIs and we were able to create that. The solution is very versatile with all its capabilities and is able to do what we need to do. We even use it for Salesforce.

It provides us application integration, data integration, business-to-business communications, and APIs. We haven't used it for microservices. That range of features is very important to us. It conducts our real-time payment applications, as well as our real-time integrations between our internal applications.

The logging capability has room for improvement. That way, we could keep a history of all the transactions. It would be helpful to be able to get to that without having to build a standalone solution to do so.

I have used webMethods Integration Server for about 12 years.

We haven't had any issues. Everything has been working. We like the new version, the new upgrades. It seems they keep improving upon things. We've put in high-availability and fault tolerant solutions so we have had zero downtime due to the system itself.

We haven't run into any limitations up until now. We utilize it for a lot of different things, but we haven't run into any speed issues or other problems.

We end up talking to our customers using the solution and we have over 250,000 customers. Our internal users don't really even notice it. They just see that everything is up and running and available in real time.

We haven't run into an issue requiring technical support from their side. It's usually something that we have to adapt to or modify. It's usually something internal.

We used eCheck. It was website-based for point to point integrations. We switched to Integration Server to improve speed to market and have a quicker way to turn things around. We also wanted to put in some newer interfaces that would talk to all of our customers.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. We were able to quickly utilize some templates, things that they already had, to get it up to speed.

We took our time. We developed and deployed our first product in eight months. Then, over the course of time, we were able to add more and more until we had a robust solution.

Our implementation strategy was to look at business needs to prioritize things.

In terms of maintenance, it only requires oversight, nothing too obtrusive. We've got one integration engineer dedicated to all of our integrations and we haven't had any issues yet.

webMethods provided the name of a third-party and then we reached out to them and we got them onboard. The company's name was Kellton Tech and they did a very good job. They're still with us.

We were able to realize ROI fairly quickly because we were able to reduce a lot of the manual work and point-to-point integrations. If you think of truck costs and the amount of gas expense, we don't have to worry about those on a daily basis anymore. Those alone would justify it.

It's a good deal for the money that we pay.

We went through evaluation criteria with three or four vendors and we found this one to be the best. The primary advantages of this solution were the supportability and ease of use. Also, the deployment time was reduced and development was more Java-based.

Start with proofs of concept. Create a few good proofs of concept and get it up and running and you'll be able to escalate things. Make them achievable.

The biggest lesson I have learned from using the solution is that I should have envisioned it a little bit bigger. We had a lot of point-to-point solutions that we could have considered and I think we still have a lot more to go. Also, if the back-end is not available, we should build in some logic that says, "Okay, now that I'm not getting a valid response or any response, I should be able to quickly use a default or turn off some features." We're trying to redesign and re-engineer it for that to happen.

As an overall product and solution, it has met our needs.

We are looking to use webMethods as part of our business process management solution. We have a mainframe and it facilitates connectivity with our database.

The designer is very helpful in developing services.

Interacting with and developing services is very fast. As long as the requirements are clear, developing service will take no longer than one or two working days.

The tool is very powerful and user-friendly. For example, I have a new team member and within one or two months, they are able to write and deploy services. Once you have a basic understanding of it, you can begin developing.

We would like to have a gateway server included, where we can control the number of requests.

There is an interface in webMethods for building a portal, but we are not using it because the price of the license is too high.

I would like to have a dashboard where I can see all of the communication between components and the configuration. As it is now, it is a lengthy search process. When a request comes in, sometimes you have to go to the administration page and then search the web after that. I need to be able to trace the flow from the port to the service to find the issue and there is no diagram to show me the parts. This is something that would be helpful.

I have been working with WebMethods for more than seven years, since 2012.

We have no complaints about stability.

Scalability has not been a problem for us.

We have not needed to contact technical support.

Our in-house team is responsible for maintenance.

This is an expensive product and we may replace it with something more reasonably priced.

We are considering switching to WSO2 Enterprise Integrator because the pricing is better.

My advice to anybody who is considering this product is that it is a very powerful tool that will empower the development of services. If there is a proper plan then it can be achieved within a short period of time. After a service has been developed and tested, it is moved to the staging environment. Once it is tested, we move it to production. Moving it will not take more than a few minutes.

It is definitely a product I recommend to people who have the money to pay for it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

webMethods provides the ESB backbone for us since more than 8 years without any hick ups

High throughput and excellent scalability.

Programming model with flow is hopelessly outdated. Forced migration from MessageBroker to Universal Messaging requires large scale reimplementation for JMS

ESB is rock solid. Products on top of Integration Server have much less stability.

No. Absolute top.

Webmethods ESB works, but support is layered an requires escalation every so often

We used IBM MQ Series and migrated due to licensing issues.

Significant topics with bespoke programming model (FLOW language), difficult to find experts and if, they are expensive. Wouldn't do it again.

Mixed team with vendor.

N/A

Initialy good pricing and good, if it comes to Enterprise license agreements.

It's a rather mature solution with lot's of design choices we would not accept in 2017. We are in fact considering to leave to other products.

We use the solution in the API gateway services. 

I like the tool's scalability. 

webMethods.io Integration's installation is complex. It should also improve integration and connectors. 

I have been working with the solution for more than ten years. 

The tool's support is good. 

Positive

I have used Apigee before webMethods.io Integration. 

The installation took about four to six weeks to complete. You don't need a big team to handle the deployment. We relied on one system architect to handle it. The tool's maintenance is also not difficult. 

webMethods.io Integration's pricing is high and has yearly subscription costs.  

This solution suits enterprises and I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

We send EDIs to our customers and then to our backend system, SAP. We're basically integrating our external partners with our backend ERP system. We are customers of Built.io. 

The EDI is pretty robust with the IO. The solution they provide at Software AG is pretty good and solid. The integration with SAP is also good. Those are very solid compared to other products.

There is room for improvement because Software AG is leading to the market for the IO, for the iPass so they may have to improve a lot on the other data, like scaling and also some of the connectors to different types of cloud applications. I doubt they have all the connectors to all the applications, like other products have. They have standard connectors like SAP, Salesforce and the others; they need to have Azure, and AWS, all those connectors. In general, improved scalability and connection to different cloud applications would make a big difference. I think that the product is not completely mature and they need to do some work on that. I would like to see a reduced price for the solution. 

I've been using this solution for three years. 

The stability is pretty good.  

The scalability needs to be improved with connectors to the other applications. 

The support team is very accessible and ready to help with any issues and questions. 

The initial setup was a little complex for me because  you need to install Docker and you need to carry out numerous configurations and then send it out to the API gateway. That's one of the things they need to improve. In other solutions, it's like a click of a button, and it does everything for you. It has some limitations, so they need to improve that and make it simpler for installation. 

License costs are quite high. 

Installation can be problematic, but once you've done that, it's easy to use. It's somewhat lacking with CICD, Continuous Integration and Continuous Development. If they want to integrate a Software AG product into a Docker and deploy using Docker and CICD, those kinds of things are lacking.

I would rate this solution a seven out of 10.