webMethods.io Reviews

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.

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.

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. 

webMethods, in my current client's environment, is used to provide solutions based on SOA (web services) and BPM (Business Process Management).

The MFT component of webMethods, for example, is easy to set up and convenient to use. It handles files very efficiently and it is easy to automate tasks with complex schedules. Monitoring is centralized to MWS which can be used to monitor other products as well (Trading Networks, BPM, MFT, etc.)

• SOA
• BPM
• Trading Networks (B2B)
• Active transfer (MFT)

Documentation needs tuning. There is a lot of dependency with SoftwareAG. Even with the documentation at hand, you can struggle to implement scenarios without SAG’s help. By contrast, IBM’s documentation is self-explanatory, in my opinion.

I am using webMethods Integration Server for integrating services mainly, enterprise services bus (ESB). It is a platform for the integration of different systems.

The solution can be used in many industries and different IT systems, such as internal and external databases. We have many dedicated auditors for common projects.

The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is its reliability. It has a lot of great documentation from the service providers. Additionally, it is easy to use.

This is a great solution and the vendor could improve the marketing of the solution to be able to reach more clients.

I have been using the webMethods Integration Server for approximately six years and I use it daily.

I use the latest version and sometimes older versions.

The solution can be deployed on the cloud or on-premise.

The stability of the webMethods Integration Server is good.

webMethods Integration Server is a scalable solution. There are Microsoft Windows and Linux versions available.

We have more than 10 customers using this solution.

I have used the support from webMethods Integration Server and they have been helpful. The support was able to find the solution to my problems with a fix.

The installation of the webMethods Integration Server is straightforward.

The length of time it takes for the implementation depends on the architecture and how many instances we need to install for the client. However, it typically takes a couple of days.

The implementation process starts with downloading a load that connects to the software. A server takes on the needed components, such as an integration server or universal messaging. You need to follow the integration steps.

We do the implementation of the solution.

There is a license needed to use the webMethods Integration Server.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate webMethods Integration Server an eight out of ten.

While I do not recall exactly which version of webMethods.io Integration we are using, I believe it to be 10 or 12. 

We use the solution in respect of eight or nine integrations that we did with the different applications.

Oracle's self-service capabilities, of which we make extensive use, is the most valuable feature. 

The products, at the moment, are new and there should perhaps be support for the older version of the protocols. While I know that they have the new versions, which are actually needed, I don't believe they have that capacity when it comes to any integration with older systems. This is because I believe us to be more advanced nowadays, with what they are doing for the roadmap of new technologies.

The solution is very stable and we have had no issues with it thus far, two years running. 

The solution is, for sure, scalable and can go to containers and dockers. I believe this to be the plan for the moment. 

I found the technical support to be very good. Although we implemented during the pandemic, us being in need of the resources from a side KSA, we did not face any difficulty, as the resources are available locally. Also, we were able to do the implementation during the peak of the pandemic. 

We had a very good implementation engineer, so the deployment was very straightforward, nothing complex. Once the input and output signatures are aligned between the systems, everything is as it should be. 

The number of people needed for maintenance will vary with the features one is using. We use features which may require two to three people. The same holds true with implementation. 

While I have yet to calculate a return on investment, I have definitely seen one. Owing to the number of users, I would say that it is huge. This is because we have used it for self-services, something which is very productive. 

In the past, we dealt with paperwork, but we now use the solution to digitize everything. We use it as a platform towards the goal of digitization, which was the whole point of the project itself. 

In the past, we had Oracle ESP and we replaced that with Software AG. Contractually, it was Oracle ESB, at which point we got the change request to switch over to Softwares AG webMethods.

I feel the solution provides a very good platform for interconnectivity between the applications, beyond what most users have, which is point-to-point connectivity. This is a good platform for doing multipoint connections and allows one to use the APIs in multiple ways for a variety of purposes and services. It also has caching features, which greatly allows one to cache the data. It has so many caching mechanisms for speeding up the data towards the users. 

This saves the user from having to go to the backend to retrieve the data, as it is available on the ESB, something which is cached and can be released to the user. This saves time going to the backend. 

I rate webMethods.io Integration as a nine out of ten. 

We use this enterprise integration application to support web service portals, B2B processes. I'm a consultant and we are customers of webMethods.io.

The internal services that they provide make it easy to work with. It's easy to construct new interfaces like apps, client portals, and so on because they consume the portal services that we provide.

I think rules engine processes and BPM processes should be improved. I think they must accommodate the future of the communication between systems and that is related to web services and the like. 

I've been using this product for 20 years. 

The support is at a medium level of satisfaction. 

The initial implementation was straightforward but then there are multiple requests that follow and that may be more difficult. WebMethods is used to provide services to the portal. Users don't directly use our platform; they use the platform that uses our platform and in that sense we probably have about 1,000 users. We don't have plans to increase usage for now. 

My advice is to pay attention to the human resources because it's difficult to have senior consultants in all areas, it's rare. There aren't many good, experienced consultants in the market. 

I rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We're using it for managing secure file transfers for the company.

We have a reusable code that we can replicate for any new interfaces.

Ease of use.

The newest version, which we are not on, has all the features that we are looking for, meaning managed files transfer adapter.

It is stable. They are rather aggressive in their patches and upgrades.

It seems to be doing very well.

We got the product via a reseller, and the support from the reseller has been less than desirable.

We did not use another solution previously.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We enlisted help from the reseller with the initial setup.

I have only heard of Software AG, Talend, and MuleSoft.

Look at the stability of the company, and also take a close look at the pricing. Lower pricing doesn't necessarily mean it's a better product.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:

• Price
• Features
• Support.