webMethods.io Reviews

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. 

Having experience with various EAI and ESB tools like Oracle Service Bus (former BEA Aqualogic) and Webmethods summary would be that everything can be done with any technology.

However the difference may be the time needed in order to implement the same integration features based on the existing product features.

From my point of view a good EAI and ESB solution needs to have what Webmethods offers

• a layer on top to isolate developers from the J2EE implementation ie to avoid implementing integration services in pure Java as if you were just coding the integration in Java
• Provides needed adapters yes, but with an intuitive front end that allows you to configure and use them (e.g setup number of retries for transient connectivity errors) rather than program in Java to implement calls to use the adapters
• A platform that allows continuous integration with a deployment engine and dependencies (and their changes) resolved and centralized in the server as a repository.

Some features reviewed

• Unit testing & Debugging capabilities: Webmethods allows you to debug your services in a step by step mode with variable watchers whereas in other programming oriented EAI solutions the testing in not dynamic and we can only rely in SOAPUI executions and reviewing returned XMLs and logs. From my point of view this is a decision driver.
• Data Mapping capabilities and XML management: In Webmethods you don’t need to work with XML parsing (if you don’t really want to) and data mapping and transformation is natural and based on UI drag&drop capabilities (No need to use XQuery or XPath if not needed). In webmethods you work with the Pipeline concept and needed transformations using a GUI designer. Canonical document transformations can be created fairly simple. Document structure/schemas are centralized in the server repository so there are no discrepancies when a document structure changes. If a document structure changes all services using that document get automatically updated. I still recall how complicated it was to manage XML transformations, parsing and schema dependencies within other EAI packages. Mapping was basically relying again on coding, XSLT transformation and library dependencies.
• In other solutions, basic tasks (like setting up a DB connection and test that) should not start a huge discussion troubleshoot thread leading the developer to spend most of his time troubleshooting and discussing about technical issues e.g not why he/she cannot connect to the database.
• Deployment and code changes: Webmethods has a central repository where an app dev resource is locking a given resource. Until that resource is unlocked nobody else can work on that item. Once a component is changed there is no deployment, changes are already in that environment. Once the code has been changed and unit tested migrating this to the next environment is a matter of a couple of clicks (no need to restart the server or wait minutes before you can see the changes). This helps having a system that allows maintaining continuous integration.
• Audit and logs: This is natural and simple in Webmethods, you can flag any service to be audited in their log database (on success and/or errors, when the service starts, exits, including parameters or not). You don’t need to have any extra coding for that. You can then use those logs to run your reports in SQLServer.
• Small features that help speeding up development, just as an example: commenting steps in an integration process is fairly simple in Webmethods while in other EAI solutions is a nightmare or impossible.

We used webmethods in an EAI project to integrate transactions from a bespoken HR Portal (e.g bank details change, new hire, salary increase, etc...) to update two different customer ERP systems in the back-end (SAP HR and PeopleSoft) thus providing self service capabilities to end users and reducing the need for manual data entry by agents (prone to errors and systems not being synchronized)

At least in SAG Webmethods 8 there was no Data Value Repository tool that would allow to map values/codes from source (in our case HR portal) and transform that into target ERP codes (SAP and PeopleSoft)

We therefore had to create our own solution and make calls at runtime to that repository (we called it Value List Repository or VLR for short) to resolve correct values in target.

The tool helps with the integration between multiple entities at the same time.

webMethods Integration Server needs to add more adapters. 

The product is very stable. 

webMethods Integration Server is scalable. We use it daily. 

webMethods Integration Server's setup was straightforward. The tool's deployment took one to two hours to complete. 

I would rate webMethods Integration Server an eight out of ten. 

Segregation of deployment for the environments is the most valuable feature of the solution.

The product must improve the performance of Designer. The product must add more compatible connectors. The solution should provide more customization options.

I have been using the solution for about ten years.

I rate the solution’s stability a ten out of ten.

I rate the scalability a nine out of ten. Seven users are using the solution in our organization.

The technical support team is not so good.

Neutral

The initial setup is not difficult for me. I rate the ease of setup a seven or eight out of ten.

The deployment process took around two weeks. We need a team of seven people to deploy the solution.

I rate the pricing a nine out of ten. The product is expensive.

I am using the latest version of the solution. My advice to product users depends on their organization's scale. If an organization is a medium to large enterprise, I would recommend the solution to them. If the organization is small, it should consider other solutions in the market. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for logistic purposes.

The solution's most valuable feature is its ability to integrate with various servers.

The solution could be more user-friendly. They should include proper documentation for easy understanding.

We have ten solution users in our company. It has good scalability. We plan to increase its usage.

The solution's customer service is good. We have support access. Thus, we write to them for the service request in case of any issues.

The complexity of the solution's initial setup process depends on the environment and specific project requirements.

We purchase a yearly basis license for the solution. I rate its pricing an eight. It is not that expensive. The price depends on the use cases, support, and resources for implementation.

It is a good solution. Also, it is easy to use compared to other integration solutions like Azure, SAP, etc. It has the highest resolution and is more secure as well. I rate it a nine.

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. 

In the API gateway, there is a new feature that allows us to filter logs within a payload. This has been a useful feature.

The configuring of the JWT token would be improved as it is a confusing process. We require more information on this part of the solution. 

This is a stable solution.

This is a scalable solution. 

The initial setup was straightforward and easy. 

 The pricing of this solution is reasonable. 

This solution is flexible and can be used across a number of projects. I have used it for banking and retail. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.