webMethods.io Reviews

This product is used for application integration. I have implemented this solution for many clients across the world.

The most valuable feature is stability. 

We have been experiencing problems with using Terracotta for clustering, which is something that they should improve.

Technical support is an area where they can improve.

I have been working with this product for approximately 15 years. The organization that I am currently with has been using it for about five.

This is a stable product. The Universal Messaging component had some issues with stability, although they have now been fixed. Over that time, they disappointed the customers for about two years.

We had some issues with clustering as we were trying to scale. We are using Terracotta and it gave us some problems.

The technical support team pays attention to our issues but at the same time, they don't seem to have an in-depth technical background. 

We still using IBM MQ today, although these are legacy integrations.

I have just recently started learning about MuleSoft, personally. From my research, I find that MuleSoft is better in terms of their cloud strategy.

The initial setup is not complex. I would say that it is straightforward.

The vendor is flexible with respect to pricing.

I have found that the home-grown products from this vendor always do pretty well, but when they acquire new products from third-parties, there has been some disappointment.

Overall, this is a pretty good product. In fact, my only real complaint is about support.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

• Traditional ESB solutions using multiple adapters
• API development and management.

• The time to market is relatively less.
• It's simple to learn for Java users.
• Its administration is easier.
• Extensive toolset: out-of-the-box libraries support.
• DevOps could be better.

• API development
• Traditional ESB development
• B2B development.

• DevOps support
• Java services debugging.

Customers use it for B2B integration, such as exchanging EPI or EDR documents, as well as settlement documents.

With webMethods, the creation of servers and the utilization of Trading Networks facilitate B2B integration. It resolves any related issues effectively.

Perhaps in the area of Microservices, where I think Trading Networks could benefit from some improvements.

We have experience in webMethods for 20 years. We have a lot of experience using Trading Networks for B2B integration. Our customers also use Trading Networks for B2B integration.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The customer service and support team has been good.

Neutral

The setup is easy. Moreover, it is easy to maintain.

The feedback we receive indicates that the value they derive from webMethods surpasses the cost.

Trading Networks is high priced and quite expensive.

Our customers use this solution because it is well-known to them, so they choose Trading Networks when they require B2B integration.

I would definitely recommend using this solution. Overall, I would give this solution an eight out of ten.

Currently, we're using this solution for the integration server which helps us to integrate with the mainframe.

This solution could be improved by offering subscription based licensing.

We have been using this solution since 2012. 

This is a stable solution.

This is a scalable solution. 

I would rate the initial setup of this solution a three and a half out of five. 

I would like to have training for my team members, but the training offered is a little bit expensive.

When we started using this tool, we compared it with different tools like IBM message broker and Method. 

Some who consider this solution often avoid it due to its price. Overall, webMethods offers a good user experience and is easy to use for our company. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

We have some common services, like REST-based services. We have applications, general social services, and application services. We'll use the solution as a utility to share across the applications selected.

When an organization is, for example, a bank, it can't use an open-source solution - even though open-source solutions are providing more current features. They need to go for a vendor-based solution like this product. 

It's a well-settled, mature platform.

The stability is good.

It can scale. 

We'd like for them to open up to a more cloud-based solution that could offer more flexibility and maybe a better rules engine or more integration with rules engines. The rules should also be more centralized. 

We'd like to see more documentation. We feel like we may be missing some things and would like some documentation to lay out the entire product better. We need better use cases. They don't offer many examples to showcase their product's capabilities. 

I've used the solution for more than a decade. It's been 12 to 14 years at this point. 

The solution is very stable. They have the flow language. We've been using it since version 6.0 and we haven't had any major issues. It's pretty seamless. 

For what we need, it scales quite well. We don't have to worry about having to scale too large as our organization, a bank, is not a very big bank. That said, scalability has never been a problem. 

It's a solution that is generally used by the IT department, not everyone in the company. Maybe between five and ten people use it in total. 

We have to use technical support sometimes. We do, for example, during migrations. We incorporated a business process from webMethods. We are now changing the process in terms of where we were using the database to control the business processes. It is more or less now using the RED METHODs PPM. When changes need to happen we contact them and work with them. 

While they do help, the documentation could be better. 

Positive

The initial setup is very simple and very straightforward. 

That said, open-source solutions are easier. However, we like to have a contractor come in and take care of everything.  

Everything to be set up must be done carefully and properly. Certain changes cannot be incorporated so easily. There might be certain dependencies across certain applications. We take a pretty careful approach every time we are migrating.

We had a third-party assist us with the implementation. It makes everything very easy.

I'm a user of the application. I don't directly handle the licensing. 

I'd warn potential users that, if you get into the ESB sort solution, once you get into it,  coming out of it is very difficult. The dependencies are very high and you are running it in the middle of your architecture. It becomes something you have to budget for and allocate every year. 

I'd rate the solution a seven out of ten due to the complicated installation process. 

I am an integrator of the solution. Our use case is for integration factory for SAP. It is mostly for SAP integration.

The solution is deployed on-premise. We are one version 7.

I am not satisfied with the solution because it takes too much effort to migrate and add new information. The migration could be easier. There's a lot of rework that needs to be done if you go to a newer version.

I have been using this solution for one year.

The solution is stable.

For supporting the solution and installing things, we have maybe 10 or so users. We have no plans to increase usage.

The solution is scalable.

Before using webMethods, I used a different cloud data migration solution for other customers. 

It's a running system, so I haven't had any experience with the installations.

The pricing is a yearly license.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

I would recommend this solution, but it is old fashioned.

Primary use case is to provide ESB for legacy and SOA services, Business Process Management with BPMS and API Gateway for external partners.

We moved from EAI to SOA architecture while moving to webMethods. Both of these decisions made the reusable services approach available across the organization.

Best feature is Insight for monitoring, and as a debugging tool. It has saved us a lot of time during crisis situations.

The product needs to be improved in a few ways. First, they need to stabilize the components of the whole platform across versions. Also, they should stop replacing old components with brand new ones and, rather, improve by evolution.

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

Average. No super-fast responses, no problems ultimately in resolving, and also no long, unresolved issues.

Complex, regarding previous architecture and full SOA stack deployment.

Microsoft BizTalk, JBoss SOA.

CentraSite for governance and life cycle management. It frankly fills the gap between IT and business by having approval and policy enforcement on each state and cycle of the asset from the moment it gets created until it is retired.

It becomes the only integration platform through which any external/internal data exchange does any web services. Below are more details:

• There are many projects in the organization which need data from external entities and all integration endpoints implemented using webMethods integration platform.
• Departments in the organization currently understand what to exchange and in what type by having an enterprise data model in webMethods integration platform.
• Business users are involved in any integration as approvals have to take place throughout the lifecycle of the service.
• Reports and dashboards give management a big picture of the integration usage and potential bottlenecks.

Rapid application development has to be considered, especially for UI, where user interference is crucial.

Eight years using the following different product versions:

• webMethods API Management platform – CentraSite, Mediator, API Portal, API Gateway
• webMethods Integration Server
• webMethods Universal Messaging
• Terracotta In-Memory
• webMethods Business Process Management
• webMethods Optimize for Process

No.

No.

Good as long the support request is clear and justified.

Yes, Adobe LiveCycle ES4. Adobe LiveCycle is superior when it comes to UI and process development, whereas, the integration capabilities are less compared to webMethods.

Complex. Lots of configuration parameters have to be set to guarantee a solid platform. Some of these parameters are not mentioned in the product documentation!

Always plan five years ahead and don’t jeopardize the quality of your project by dropping items from the bill of materials.

No.

• Requirements for API life cycle model should be gathered carefully.
• Consider SOA governance and don’t impose lots of policies that restrict the visibility of assets/services.
• Always consider an enterprise data model for service integration and business processes.
• Define potential KPIs for process optimization during the process definition phase, not during the implementation.
• Consider In-Memory while clustering the servers and developing services.
• Consider an asynchronous integration pattern to guarantee the delivery.