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

Oracle Service Bus vs webMethods.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 3, 2025

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

Oracle Service Bus
Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
5th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
30
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
webMethods.io
Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
92
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (10th), API Management (10th), Cloud Data Integration (7th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) category, the mindshare of Oracle Service Bus is 12.1%, up from 11.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 10.7%, up from 9.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
 

Featured Reviews

Radhey Rajput - PeerSpot reviewer
Allows seamless integration and connectivity with different types of systems
I would suggest using this solution. Oracle Service Bus is very good. Any organization can use it. So it's very robust and scalable, and its security features are very good. Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten because there are some loopholes in service and support. Sometimes, when we have issues and go to Oracle support, they will not give us solutions. Instead, they will ask for so many log files and emails. The product is good, but the support is not.
Michele Illiano - PeerSpot reviewer
Can function as an ESB along with the core product, with decent integration of message protocols
I have noticed that webMethods ActiveTransfer has had problems when handling large files. For example, when we receive (and perform operations on) files that are larger than about 16 MB, the software starts losing performance. This is why, for most customers who have to deal with big files, I suggest that they use a product other than ActiveTransfer. I would like to note that this problem mainly concerns large files that undergo extra operations, such assigning, unassigning, or file translation. When these operations take place on large files, ActiveTransfer will use up a lot of resources. Within the product itself, I also believe that there is room for improvement in terms of optimization when it comes to general performance. I suspect that the issues underlying poor optimization are because it is all developed in Java. That is, all the objects and functions that are used need to be better organized, especially when it comes to big files but also overall. webMethods ActiveTransfer was born as an ESB to handle messages, and these messages were typically very short, i.e. small in size. A message is data that you have to send to an application, where it must be received in real-time and possibly processed or acknowledged elsewhere in the system as well. So, because it was initially designed for small messages, it struggles with performance when presented with very large files. All this to say, I suggest that they have an engineer reevaluate the architecture of the product in order to consider cases where large files are sent, and not only small ones. As for new features, compared to other products in the market, I think Software AG should be more up to date when it comes to extra protocol support, especially those protocols that other solutions have included in their products by default. Whenever we need to add an unsupported protocol, we have to go through the effort of custom development in order to work with it. Also, all the banks are obligated to migrate to the new standards, and big companies are all handling translations and operating their libraries with the new protocol formats. But webMethods ActiveTransfer doesn't seem to be keeping up with this evolution. Thus, they should aim to be more compliant in future, along the lines of their competitors such as IBM and Primeur.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I like the ease of deployment and the ease of implementation."
"Monitoring feature that allows tracking of the web's UI development."
"This product is not complicated and very easy to learn."
"The most valuable feature is the adapters."
"Overall it is a pretty good solution."
"The flexibility offered by Oracle Service Bus, especially in the latest versions, includes abstracting underlying processes and enabling drag-and-drop mappings from source to destination."
"API management and defining varying protocols are the most valuable features"
"It is lightweight and one can easily integrate with different applications, databases, JMS, or web services through different protocols."
"The core product can be used not only for automatic file transfers between applications, but also as an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)."
"The developer portal is a valuable feature."
"It's a visual tool, so our transformations can be quickly implemented without a lot of fuss. The fact that we have an easy way to expose REST services is also very interesting. It offers the possibility to connect over GMS to synchronize message brokers."
"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.)"
"Oracle's self-service capabilities, of which we make extensive use, is the most valuable feature."
"What I found most valuable in webMethods Integration Server is that it's a strong ESB. It also has strong API modules and portals."
"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."
 

Cons

"This solution should work better with RESTful services."
"The error-handling capability can be improved"
"There is significant room for improvement in the monitoring capabilities."
"The connectivity with the solution is an area that needs to be improved. On occasion, requests are lost due to losing connectivity."
"Lacks sufficient cloud compatibility."
"We have faced a problem with the heap memory side, but that is stable now."
"It would be ideal if they could optimize it a bit."
"It needs to support more adapters, because the integration points keep changing and new things keep coming up. It also needs to be more scalable."
"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."
"It is quite expensive."
"The certifications and learning resources are not exposed openly enough. For instance, they have a trial version which comes with only a few basic features, and I think that community-wise they need to offer more free or open spaces where developers can feel encouraged to experiment."
"webMethods Integration Server could improve on the version control. I'm not sure if Web Method has some kind of inbuilt integration with Bitbucket or GitHub or some kind of version control system. However, that's one area where they can improve."
"For code version control, you need to use some external software."
"Perhaps in the area of Microservices, where I think Trading Networks could benefit from some improvements."
"It is difficult to maintain."
"The learning curve is a little steep at first."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This is a very expensive product and the price varies depending on factors such as the number of processors and the number of users. Our licensing fees are approximately $300,000."
"Oracle Service Bus is a bit expensive"
"The price of this solution is better than the subscription-based Mule ESB."
"We have an unlimited yearly license."
"The pricing is on the higher side."
"I'm not aware of how much Oracle Service Bus costs."
"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."
"webMethods.io Integration's pricing is high and has yearly subscription costs."
"The price is high and I give it a five out of ten."
"I would like to see better pricing for the license."
"I do see a lack of capabilities inside of the monetization area for them. They have a cloud infrastructure that is pay per use type of a thing. If you already use 1,000 transactions per se, then you can be charged and billed. I see room for improvement there for their side on that particular capability of the monetization."
"Its cost depends on the use cases."
"I do think webMethods is coming under increasing pressure when it comes to their price-to-feature value proposition. It's probably the single biggest strategic risk they have. They're very expensive in their industry. They've been raising the price recently, especially when compared with their competitors."
"The pricing and licensing costs for webMethods are very high, which is the only reason that we might switch to another product."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions are best for your needs.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
16%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Oracle Service Bus?
The stability is consistently high, with only one notable issue encountered.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Oracle Service Bus?
Oracle Service Bus is expensive but provides value for money. The pricing is comparative to IBM offerings.
What needs improvement with Oracle Service Bus?
The microservices portion of Oracle Service Bus needs some improvement. Compared to MuleSoft, MuleSoft is much easier to use and deploy than what is currently available in Oracle Service Bus.
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

MakeMyTrip Ltd., Griffith University, Colab Consulting Pty. Ltd., Pacfico Seguros Generales, IGEPA IT-SERVICE GmbH, Guangzhou Municipal Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, Pacfico Seguros Generales, Bank Audi S.A.L., Rydges Sydney Airport, Intelligent Pathways, Nacional Monte de Piedad IAP
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about Oracle Service Bus vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.