WSO2 Enterprise Integrator Reviews

Our primary use case for this solution is building APIs to integrate with other systems. 

It has improved our time management because development is quicker.

The drag-and-drop features for connectors are very valuable.

You cannot include the validation of XPath.

We have been using this solution for approximately three years. The solution is deployed on-premises.

The solution is stable, and we have not experienced any issues.

The solution is said to be scalable, but we haven't gotten the solution to a point where we can scale it per the requirement. So, I wouldn't know whether it's genuinely scalable yet. Currently, less than 20 people are using this solution in our organization.

We have had a good experience with customer service and support because they are resourceful and helpful. I rate the support team eight out of ten.

Positive

We previously used Broadcom but switched because the license for this solution was more affordable.

The initial setup was straightforward. However, it took a few hours to deploy the solution.

Implementation was done in-house.

I cannot comment on pricing and licensing as I don't have access to that information.

I am unsure if other options were evaluated.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. The solution is good but can be improved by including validation exports for XPath. I recommend this solution to people considering it.

I was using the solution for integration purposes. 

It was mostly easy to set up the product.

We liked that the product was offered as an open-source solution. 

It can likely scale well.

The solution is stable. 

It's generally easy to use and works well with legacy systems.

The integration capabilities need to be improved. We hope to see better integration in the future. 

I've been using the solution for one year.

The solution is stable and reliable. We found the product to be free of bugs or glitches. It did not crash or freeze. 

I'm not sure how many people ultimately used the solution in our organization. 

I'm not familiar with how scalable the product would be. I did not attempt to scale the product. However, it likely can scale a bit.

I never had to reach out to technical support. I do not know how helpful or responsive they would be. 

We did not previously use a different product.

We found it difficult to handle integration. Other than that, it was easy. It only takes a few minutes to set up. It's very quick.

We did not have to worry about maintenance while we used it. 

We did not need any assistance with the setup process. We handled the setup ourselves. 

The solution is open-source and free to use.

We did not evaluate other options from different vendors. 

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. 

I'd recommend the product to others. It was issue free while I used it. 

If you have a legacy system, you can use this product. It is really, really easy.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten overall.

I use the solution for two purposes. One is to build microservices to enable exposure of APIs, and the second is for implementing communication with backend systems. It helps in integrating business systems with business applications.

I haven't chosen the product, but my client has chosen it. I wouldn't say it's my favorite. My purpose is to enable integration between the front-end of user setup with the back-end data or business systems. Secondly, enabling integration with third parties or external applications.

WSO2 is investing in Gong and the enterprise industry, and they are also working on communication. WSO2 also enables integration between on-premise and cloud applications, which is better than their competitors.

In my opinion, all of their products come with a very expensive support model. Their business model has one license for product users and a different license for resellers. But the license can get expensive when any issues arise, and either troubleshooting or maintenance is needed, or there is a need for new packets.

In this way, they try to lock the clients in for three to five years. They make sure they have regular revenue coming in. It is not right from a client's or a user's perspective. Until the time we implement it for real usage, we couldn't see the actual issues with it. Once we find them, we have to wait for the package to be applied, and then there's a lot of back-and-forth communication. The process depends on the classes that are specifically applied because it is a product that is available across the market for anyone. So every supplier tries to get a general version for each one. Some of the security patches are not compatible with the older versions. So the client is forced to upgrade.

I have been using the solution for over four or five years.

I haven't seen major issues in terms of stability. It’s quite a stable product. In the updated version, if they get rid of the account manager it leads to exposure to a lot of traffic. The product is unable to maintain the traffic. There is a funnel applied through incident application to sort the traffic and protect the backend systems. But we haven’t tested the gateway itself for a very high volume. Thus, I wouldn’t be able to blindly rate it as an eight or nine out of ten, I will put it as a seven out of ten.

I don’t have any issues with scalability. I would rate scalability a six out of ten. My clients have 10-35 users, predominantly IT engineers using the solution. But scalability becomes an issue only when I'm scaling across on-premises and on-cloud. Let’s say I do the implementation on the cloud but for some reason such as scheduled maintenance or any other kind of incident, the implementation fails, I can’t scale over to on-premises. But, I will need to use a bespoke routine mechanism to route the traffic to the on-premises solution. Here, I can do an active-active implementation between the cloud and on-premises.

The customer service executives are very responsive, but then the support model and the commercials are cumbersome. It's not as easy. They are expensive for any upgrades or patches. The support model is expensive.

If I have to buy software, then it becomes expensive for me. The licensing model is based on servers or implementations. Because we supply and install the product, it doesn’t matter how many times we have rented or used the solution. They also seem to have the number of live environments as one of the licensing criteria.

It is a good product. However, I haven't been in touch with the most recent security patches. I don't have anything negative to say about the product. I would rate it as a six out of ten. There is a scope for improvement at the same time. I haven't used the product extensively enough to say that it is the best product.

I like the user-friendly system and development of the service-oriented architecture. The minimum hardware and installation requirements are great.

I would like to see the clustering feature written with a proper connection to WSO2 Enterprise Integrator servers. If a tool was available for developing some special interfaces and this tool could be through a wizard on the web interface itself, that would be helpful. I would like to see them bring back a feature, from early versions, that was very useful in debugging and finding issues.

I have been using WSO2 Enterprise Integrator for the past four years now.

We have made several initial tests on it and we have never had an issue with the stability of the system. It is very stable and light on consumption in terms of memory and CPU.

The scalability is not strong. If you want to scale it you have to install multiple servers.

Technical support provides proper support.

Positive

The setup was straightforward and simple.

WSO2 Enterprise Integrator may cost you about twenty-five thousand dollars annually per year compared to IBM Cloud Pak, which would cost you around one million dollars.

We did compare it to other solutions. There is a big difference when you look at IBM Cloud Pak. Ease of use, maintenance, and cost are better with WSO2 Enterprise Integrator.

I would rate WSO2 Enterprise Integrator an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution to access external services or expose our internal services to outside entities.

The solution basically conforms to our standards. 

It used to be or was available as open source. I'm not sure about this right now.

It is a stable product.

My understanding is the solution can scale. 

I don't know the whole history since I'm relatively new to the organization; however, the product that we use needs to be supported effectively. And for some time, we had paid for support, and yet we are not satisfied with the quality of service. Therefore, we just stopped using the service and the support, and now the product is being retired, as I understand.

One of the reasons that we are looking for a replacement is their way of defining integration. The language of the XML structures that I use to describe the integrations are not that standard, and it's not easy to find people who are familiar with this approach. Standardization of the programming on the configuration language would be an advantage.

I've been using the solution for over five years. 

We haven't had issues with stability in any way. There haven't been bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution has served our purposes, and we've never had issues in terms of scale. Therefore, I would assume scaling is fine.

We've found support, which we need to pay for, was generally lacking in the level of service we expected. It's a major contributor to why we are moving away from the product.

Neutral

We are currently looking for a replacement for WSO2.

I was not present at the company when it was implemented. I can't speak to how easy or difficult the process was. 

Maintenace can be an issue sometimes as the support hasn't been great. With a lack of external support, we can run into issues. 

I'm not aware of the exact pricing. That was not in my scope of work.

We are using the most current update of the product.

I'd advise new users to evaluate the features of the product versus the requirements and to make sure that this is a good fit before committing to the product.

I'd rate the solution five out of ten, basically in the middle. I wasn't involved with the tool from the very beginning, and now we are moving away from it. I may not be the best source of information on the intricacies of the product itself. 

We are using it for our enterprise customers.

The connectors feature has been the most valuable for us. The built-in connectors help with quick connectivity to the platforms. We are using this for both our banking and insurance clients.

I would like to see easier customizations in the new WSO2 Enterprise Integrator versions. Most of the issues we run into with the WSO2 Enterprise Integrator deal with customizations.

Another problem that we run into is that our clients, which are mostly in government, do not want to put analytics on the cloud. So, I would like to see an on-premise analytics solution. In the last town hall call, they said they plan on introducing it in the future. 

The analytics has to be part of this or otherwise we will have to use an ELK or something similar. 

I have been using WSO2 Enterprise Integrator for four years. 

WSO2 Enterprise Integrator is a stable product. 

WSO2 Enterprise Integrator is a scalable product. 

They have a support portal where we can log a ticket and get good support from them. We get it directly from the OEM. It's a real good one. 

Whenever we log a ticket, their team comes over or calls and analyzes the problem jointly with us. They provide good support. 

The initial setup was straightforward. WSO2 Enterprise Integrator is not a complex piece of software. It's simple to handle and easy to manage.

We can deploy it in a day's time. We have done major deployments, so it doesn't take much time for us. 

The pricing is reasonable, it's not costly. I think it's open source. 

Future users should keep in mind that they will need at least a little bit of guidance from an API manager. It is not likely that they will be able to just install and handle it directly. They will need some bit of guidance and support. 

We basically use the solution for the connectors. There are some legacy platforms and the WSO2 provides a good amount of connectors. I'm able to integrate this quickly with those third-party platforms. There are some big mediations that are also required.

The link tool is good. 

There is a good GUI tool where you can define all your requirements. It is very easy to use. 

We are still exploring the entire solution. There are so many solutions, ESB solutions, and we are still learning. 

The interface is very good.

The dashboard is excellent.

The reporting of the solution is very good.

The installation process is easy.

The pricing is okay.

We've found the technical support to be good so far.

The solution can scale well.

I will need some time to reflect on improvements as we are still exploring the product. Maybe in another two or three months, I'd have more insights.

The customization can be a bit difficult.

I've only been using the solution for a month. It hasn't been that long just yet.

The stability is very good. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze from what I have seen so far. It's reliable and the performance has been good.

The scalability is good. It's possible to expand it if you need to.

We haven't had any issues with the technical support. They seem to be helpful and responsive. We're satisfied with the level of service we are provided so far.

On this solution, the installation is easy, however, customization, mostly due to the fact that there will be a good amount of customization and mediations, requires expertise. If the people who are implementing the solution have the right set of expertise they will be able to do it. If a novice user is attempting an implementation, they will need some training first.

There is an open-source version, however, we have a subscription. Direct technical support is available when you are on a subscription plan. In the open-source version, you have community-level support where you will get support from the community.

We've also, as per the customer requirement, looked at Mule. We are comparing these two solutions together.

We are a partner with the company.

We always use on-premises deployments as we only work with on-prem.

While I am still exploring the solution, I've so far been pretty satisfied with it. I'd rate it at a nine out of ten so far.

From my experience so far, I would recommend the solution to other users and companies. It's very customizable and the support is there if you need help. Of course, we are still in the design phase, and it is still early.

We primarily use the solution for integration between core banking and other systems.

The solution provides a way to communicate with unknown software with standard flexibility. Normally, we did not have good service integration with multiple systems and it provided this functionality, which is good.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is the integration between core banking and other systems.

There are a lot of security settings that when you apply you have to re-apply again every time you modify a setting. It is something that really needs to be enhanced.

The stability is excellent.

I wasn't able to check the scalability or test it very well previously, but I just tried it for about 1,000 transactions per minute, for testing, that it runs smoothly with no issue. We typically have a lower amount of transactions than that. Its use is not extensive.

We haven't used technical support.

We didn't previously use another solution. I was on the search for an open-source solution in order to have the ability to change or amend settings. 

The latest version remains very complex, although it's going to wizard. The information is very easy for handling the integration. The initial version we used had some complications but it's handled now. The deployment didn't take more than an hour. We only needed two people to implement the solution - an admin and a developer. For maintenance, we only need the admin.

We handled the implementation ourselves.

We don't use the cloud version; we have our own servers.

I would rate this solution eight out of ten.