No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Axway Synchrony vs SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Axway Synchrony
Average Rating
6.6
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SEEBURGER Business Integrat...
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (4th), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (12th), API Management (21st), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (14th)
 

Featured Reviews

it_user651522 - PeerSpot reviewer
Delivery Module Lead at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
It provides an API for advanced configuration. Version 6.11.4 is no longer supported by the vendor.
It is robust and flexible on new flow configurations. It provides an API for advanced configuration It provides centralized monitoring and managing of organization application file transfers, which helps to reduce the time of monitoring of individual applications. It also helps us understand the…
SS
Senior Software Engineer at HCLTech
Exceptional support and reliability drive optimal data flow and integration
The features of SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite that I found most valuable are related to entity flow. We can find the entity flow to be very useful so we can grab the flow accordingly. There is no disturbance in the connections, and it is very clear to check the connection flow with applicable queues. When comparing to other applications, SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite is the easiest way to understand the application. I have also worked on the cloud services where SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite is moving to cloud. I have worked on cloud services where the mapping part is in the cloud itself, along with the connection setup.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"It provides centralized monitoring and managing of organization application file transfers, which helps to reduce the time of monitoring of individual applications and helps us understand the file flow between applications and helps with troubleshooting issues."
"The most valuable features are XFB for its FTPS and SFTP."
"It is easy to use and is a feature-rich application in the EDI space."
"One of the things that SEEBURGER always touts is their ability to do "any to any" formatting... it doesn't matter if you want to take a CSV file or an XML file or a flat file or a PDF file or a structure EDI file; you can transform it from one format to another - any to any or even to the same format - which is a really nice feature."
"In our landscape, we have a lot of AS/400s or iSeries and SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS) has a file service listener that allows data to seamlessly be transferred between the SEEBURGER solution and the AS/400."
"Whatever it is I need, I have, for example, end-to-end integration, data mapping, communication protocols, and integration with the SAP module."
"It has helped our organization to integrate with different systems, by having different integration methods seamlessly."
"One of the most valuable features is the option to have all integration patterns constantly updated in one platform. That is the main strength I see in using SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS). It means I can use a very old-fashioned pattern, combined with a very modern pattern. There are no limitations in terms of combining components because all the components simply fit together."
"SEEBURGER BIS can reconcile documentation, like our accounts payable and statements within the system. If you are manually doing it, then it is really time consuming with a lot of errors. Whereas, SEEBURGER BIS allows for a lot of basic level programming within the documentation, filtering, and sorting out VLOOKUP. It lets us get two database tables from two different systems, then merge them based on the logic that we provide. So, it is a very helpful product."
"We rarely get hanged processes."
"Mapping Designer provides excellent flexibility."
 

Cons

"There are cheaper alternatives available in the market."
"Axway Synchrony Gateway 6.11.4 is no longer supported by the vendor."
"The logging could be better in XFB."
"Difficult in handling large amounts of data, like when the file has more than 100MB in size."
"We are a little locked in with understanding the errors that we receive. We are working with their support to prevent these issues when they come into the database. We use a SQL database and believe they can do better when it comes working with large databases. We have had few instances where the system is hanging, which are most likely from the database. We are working with their support to find out the problem and fix their system. We have tried to use their notification system to prevent these issues, but they need to improve their monitoring system."
"I don't think the scalability of the solution is that great because they have tied the solution to their named nodes and it does not allow scalability like some of the cloud products allow."
"The cost models have room for improvement. There are different licensing models between Europe and the USA, which is something that I don't understand."
"When we got SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS), it was clear that it was going to take more of a technical person. It does take a technically-rooted individual to operate it. It's not something for your everyday guy to do. For what it's doing for us, a dedicated resource is required."
"In the BIS, if I want to have some API functionalities, that is a separate tool. The integration between the API tool and the BIS is not that straightforward. If they were to combine these tools and give us one suite, that would be helpful. Today I have a lot of partners onboard. I have something like 50,000 partners doing API transactions. If I want to introduce a new tool for API management, I have to do a lot of workarounds. But if it were integrated well within the existing suite, it could be straightforward for me."
"Their technical support is okay. It doesn't blow you away."
"The BIS Front End needs a little bit of refreshing, especially when it comes to setting up new trading partners and trading partner agreements or transactions. It can be a bit clumsy to copy and rename and then go in and modify."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"We pay per message we use. We spend about £19,000 a year with them."
"The pricing is cheap. In fact, when I saw the pricing, I thought, "Really? What's the catch?" But the functionality that we get out of it, for the price we pay, is great value."
"All the new adapters are individually priced, which is good. You don't buy the whole system and then if you don't use it, you don't use it. You only buy the stuff you want..."
"Sometimes it seems a little pricey, especially when some of the stuff is available through freeware, like SFTP communications... It costs a lot more money to buy this stuff from SEEBURGER but I think it's worth it in the long run."
"I've heard that the solution is cheaper when compared to other products in the market."
"Our licensing model is based on transactions. We have a base service contract which is priced against a volume of transactions and another volume of individual transactions, which are covered by one service agreement. Then, we have development services on top of that. Our annual spend is around £80,000. It's about mid-priced, as there are some cheaper alternatives out there and some more expensive ones. It's neither cheap nor expensive. It's somewhere in the middle."
"Price and licensing are comparable to other systems. It's well-priced and simple. It's not user-based or anything. It's just per seat, per system. So, it's pretty straight forward. Because it's per system, one system is enough. However, if you want to make it larger, then you can grow with it."
"Pricing, compared to the tool that we had earlier, is cheaper."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business-to-Business Middleware solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Construction Company
8%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise38
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite?
Regarding the pricing of SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite, I would rate it as 7 out of 10.
What needs improvement with SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite?
Regarding areas of improvement for SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite, the cloud functionality needs enhancement. The cloud interface is currently too cluttered, especially when creating new tran...
What is your primary use case for SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite?
I have worked around 3.5 years with SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite ( /products/seeburger-business-integration-suite-reviews ). Currently, I am working with WebMethods. Previously, I worked fo...
 

Also Known As

Synchrony
SEEBURGER BIS
 

Overview

Information not available
 

Sample Customers

AIFE - Chorus, Soci_t_ Financire de Distribution (SFD) B2B, International Post Corporation, Union Nationale de Mutualit_s Socialistes, State of California, BHF-BANK, DHL, Clearstream MFT, CITIC Pacific Limited, Genzyme, AstraZeneca, Bollor_ Logistics, STET, MOgroep, Dartford Borough Council
Altis, Autoliv, Cebi, Cofresco, MoneyGram International, Samsonite Europe, VSP Global, BMW Group, OSRAM, Magna, Lavazza
Find out what your peers are saying about Salesforce, Informatica, IBM and others in Business-to-Business Middleware. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.