OpenText Trading Grid vs webMethods.io comparison

"The solution is easy to implement."

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

"Some of the key features are the integration platform, query mechanism, message handling within the bus, and the rules engine. We've had a really good experience with webMethods Integration Server."

"The most valuable feature is stability."

"EDI is robust and integration with SAP is good."

"Best feature is Insight for monitoring, and as a debugging tool. It has saved us a lot of time during crisis situations."

"What I like best about webMethods Integration Server is its portfolio of connectors."

"It has a good integration server, designer, and a very good API portal."

"I feel comfortable using this product with its ease of building interfaces for developers. This is a better integration tool for integrating with various applications like Oracle, Salesforce, mainframes, etc. It works fine in the integration of legacy software as well."

"Technical support needs to be better."

"The learning curve is a little steep at first."

"I would like to have a dashboard where I can see all of the communication between components and the configuration."

"I am not satisfied with the solution because it takes too much effort to migrate and add new information. The migration could be easier."

"Upgrades are complex. They typically take about five months from start to finish. There are many packages that plug into webMethods Integration Server, which is the central point for a vast majority of the transactions at my organization. Anytime we are upgrading that, there are complexities within each component that we must understand. That makes any upgrade very cumbersome and complicated. That has been my experience at this company. Because there are many different business units that we are touching, there are so many different components that we are touching. The amount of READMEs that you have to go through takes some time."

"webMethods.io lacks advanced monitoring and analytics capabilities, so my customers need to use something additional."

"The solution has big instances when deployed under microservices or in a containerized platform. They need to improve that so that it is competitive with other integration solutions, like Redis and Kafka. Deployments under microservices with those solutions are much more lightweight, in the size of the runtime itself, compared with Software AG."

"In terms of improvement, it would be better if it adapted quicker to open standards. It took a while for API specification before the last version was available. The spec of version two was rather quick."

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

"There is a license needed to use the webMethods Integration Server."

"It's a good deal for the money that we pay."

"Currently, the licensing solution for this product is pretty straightforward. The way that Software AG has moved in their licensing agreements is very understandable. It is very easy for you to see where things land. Like most vendors today, they are transaction based. Therefore, just having a good understanding of how many transactions that you are doing a year would be very wise. Luckily, there are opportunities to work with the vendor to get a good understanding of how many transactions you have and what is the right limit for you to fall under."

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

"The solution’s pricing is too high."

"This is an expensive product and we may replace it with something more reasonably priced."

"Its cost depends on the use cases."

"It is a cost-effective solution."