Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenLegacy vs webMethods.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 2024

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

OpenLegacy
Ranking in API Management
36th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
webMethods.io
Ranking in API Management
10th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
93
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (3rd), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (9th), Cloud Data Integration (8th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the API Management category, the mindshare of OpenLegacy is 0.5%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 2.5%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
API Management
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1042905 - PeerSpot reviewer
The biggest advantage is how simple the technology was.
I'd like to see OpenLegacy develop its low-code/no-code (LCNC) solutions. They've expanded somewhat their horizons for integration beyond mainframe CICS, which is their sweet spot. They have some tooling in that area, but it's not as good as it needs to be. OpenLegacy handles the bread-and-butter TP monitoring stuff, but I am working for one of the six banks in the United States still using the Hogan mainframe, which has a slightly proprietary mechanism. But OpenLegacy currently doesn't have a connector for Hogan. So it would help if they could build one. That would appeal to financial institutions that still use Hogan, like US Bank, Wells Fargo, KeyBank, and Vanguard.
MohanPrasad - PeerSpot reviewer
Smooth integration and enhanced deployment with high licensing cost
webMethods.io was used to integrate APIs through the webMethods.io platform, trigger database events, and connect backend APIs through a Java backend. It was used extensively for integration purposes in my organization Integration became smoother, troubleshooting was easier, and deployment and…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The biggest advantage of OpenLegacy was how simple the technology was. We were able to build out the OpenLegacy parts very quickly. We put together a couple hundred APIs in six months."
"Opens the door to connect modern web products to an old legacy system."
"OpenLegacy provides a way to go from the outside world to the legacy mainframe, to move the old standard application to a REST API application. New digital services can be created in a few clicks and this can be done easily by COBOL programmers."
"Using mainframe programs (not screens), the OpenLegacy services do not require any changes by the mainframe programmers, thus reducing development cycles."
"It is possible to solve larger legacy API issues on an enterprise level with this product."
"It is possible to connect a service to a mainframe program or back transaction in a matter of minutes or hours at the most."
"OpenLegacy produces a war file which includes everything you need to deploy a Tomcat server."
"Using OpenLegacy, the exposure of services is far easier and quicker. In many cases, exposure of services requires just a few clicks and takes only minutes. In very complex cases, it still only takes half a day. Without OpenLegacy, it would take us several months to create the same services."
"With webMethods, the creation of servers and the utilization of Trading Networks facilitate B2B integration. It resolves any related issues effectively."
"Ease of implementation and flexibility to hold the business logic are the most valuable features."
"The solution's ease-of-use is its most valuable feature, in which complex issues may be resolved."
"We have found the pricing of the solution to be fair."
"In the API gateway, there is a new feature that allows us to filter logs within a payload. This has been a useful feature."
"It's easy to construct new interfaces like apps and client portals."
"The main assets are its flow language, debugging, and Broker. Flow language is far better and more flexible for debugging."
"Within the new version, webMethods API Gateway gives us an end-to-end lifecycle from the creation of the API up into the development, deployment, and promotion into production/live. The current end-to-end lifecycle of the API gives us enough authority and governance of the API. We know what are currently live services, what is in the testing stage of development, and what version that has been commissioned. So, the full life cycle itself gives us full authority and governance of the API."
 

Cons

"I would like to see SSL out-of-the-box. OpenLegacy certainly does SSL, but it was not the default for our use case. We are currently working with OpenLegacy to cross the SSL bridge and suspect that most users will want to do the same."
"Debugging and logging for programmers could be better."
"I'd like to see OpenLegacy develop its low-code/no-code (LCNC) solutions. They've expanded somewhat their horizons for integration beyond mainframe CICS, which is their sweet spot. They have some tooling in that area, but it's not as good as it needs to be."
"We would also be more than happy if the product had the option to work in the opposite direction – the ability to consume REST/SOW services in the outer world from the mainframe."
"Customer support for the product is slow and not very good. It makes using the product difficult if you need help quickly."
"The pricing of the solution could be more flexible and allow for once-off payment versus annual licensing. This would be more appealing to companies in Latin America."
"One area that needs improvement is the version upgrade process. Many customers I've worked with encounter challenges when transitioning from their current version, such as x or 9, to a newer version. The process is not smooth, and they must shift their entire website."
"I'd like to see the admin portal for managing the integration server go up a level, to have more capabilities and to be given a more modern web interface."
"There should be better logging, or a better dashboard, to allow you to see see the logs of the services."
"Some of the things that we use cannot be done in this solution. For these things, we have to either use a Java service or a util service. There is no predefined or existing service that we can use. So, we have to work on the util service and write on top of it. Its price can also be better. It is pretty costly because they charge us for each transmission."
"A potential drawback of webMethods.io API is its adaptability to legacy systems, which can vary in compatibility."
"Business monitoring (BAM) needs improvement because the analytics and prediction module very often has performance problems."
"It is quite expensive."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing of the solution could be more flexible and allow for once-off payment versus annual licensing. This would be more appealing to companies in Latin America."
"There are no hidden costs in addition to the standard licensing fees for webMethods. For corporate organizations, it's a very cheap or fairly priced product, but for growing or small businesses, it's quite expensive. These businesses would probably need to consider an enterprise services bus at some point. Thus, from a pricing point, it closes out non-cooperate businesses."
"It is a cost-effective solution."
"There is a license needed to use the webMethods Integration Server."
"I would like to see better pricing for the license."
"webMethods Integration Server is expensive, and there's no fixed price on it because it has a point pricing model. You can negotiate, which makes it interesting."
"I am not involved in the licensing side of things."
"The pricing and licensing costs for webMethods are very high, which is the only reason that we might switch to another product."
"webMethods Trading Networks is a bit costly compared to others solutions."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Management solutions are best for your needs.
865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Built.io Flow?
The tool helps us to streamline data integration. Its BPM is very strong and powerful. The solution helps us manage digital transformation.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io is expensive. We have multiple components, and you need to pay for each of them.
What needs improvement with Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io needs to incorporate ChatGPT to enhance user experience. It can offer a customized user experience.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Many of openLegacy's global customers are among the Global 100 companies. Review case studies in these industries: Agriculture, Airport Authority, Automotive, Auto, Finance, Insurance, Government, Healthcare, Manufacturing, and Retailwww.openlegacy.com/case-studie...
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenLegacy vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.