OpenText Trading Grid vs webMethods.io comparison

"The solution is easy to implement."

"It's easy to construct new interfaces like apps and client portals."

"webMethods Trading Networks is a good solution for interacting with outside of the organization. We can integrate the solutions with multiple outside the organization."

"ActiveTransfer lets us maintain the file in the staging area before we transfer it. After that, we can remove the file to make sure that the reconciliation process is done. Sometimes we will zip and unzip the files, but if we have a GKB file, we often ignore it."

"The MFT component of webMethods, for example, is easy to set up and convenient to use. It handles files very efficiently and it is easy to automate tasks with complex schedules. Monitoring is centralized to MWS which can be used to monitor other products as well (Trading Networks, BPM, MFT, etc.)"

"Clients choose webMethods.io API for its intuitive interface, promoting seamless interaction and quick communication between systems."

"The product is very stable."

"High throughput and excellent scalability."

"The ease of mapping... is the single largest feature. It gives us the ability to craft anything. A lot of single-purpose technologies, like Mirth, are good for healthcare messages, but we use webMethods not only for healthcare messages but for other business-related purposes, like integrations to Salesforce or integrations to Office 365. It's multi-purpose nature is very strong."

"Technical support needs to be better."

"This product has too many gaps. You find them after update installations. This should be covered by automatic testing."

"On the monitoring side of things, the UI for monitoring could be improved. It's a bit cumbersome to work with."

"I would like to see the price improve."

"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."

"A while ago, they were hacked, and it took them a very long time to open their website again in order to download any service packs or any features. I don't know what they could do differently. I know that they were vulnerable, and there was some downtime, but because they were down, we were unable to download any potential service packs."

"The patching of infrastructure is not very smooth and improved authentication should be added in the next feature."

"The products, at the moment, are new and there should perhaps be support for the older version of the protocols."

"Some things could be improved, especially how ActiveTransfer handles third-party file transfers. It would be nice to have a native file-watching mechanism for when you're scheduling jobs with a third-party scheduler. Currently, we are using an outside file watcher solution to check the files before the file transfer. It checks the location to see if the file is there. If the file is there, it will prepare it for transfer. If the file isn't available, it will send an email it can create a ticket send it now. We recommended adding this file watcher mechanism."

"The pricing and licensing costs for webMethods are very high, which is the only reason that we might switch to another product."

"The price is high and I give it a five out of ten."

"I don’t have much idea about prices, but webMethods API Portal is not something cheaper."

"I signed a three-year deal with them. It is a yearly locked-in price for the next three years."

"The vendor is flexible with respect to pricing."

"It is a cost-effective solution."

"It is an expensive tool. I rate the product price a nine out of ten, where ten means it is very expensive."

"webMethods.io Integration's pricing is high and has yearly subscription costs."