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

WSO2 Enterprise Integrator 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

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) (9th), API Management (9th), Cloud Data Integration (7th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)
WSO2 Enterprise Integrator
Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
7th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
Data Integration (31st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) category, the mindshare of webMethods.io is 10.9%, up from 9.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of WSO2 Enterprise Integrator is 5.2%, down from 5.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
 

Featured Reviews

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.
Ritesh_Shah - PeerSpot reviewer
Decreases the development timeframe and costs
The main issue with the product is pricing. It uses core-based pricing for WSO2 Enterprise Integrator and API Manager. It would be best if you had APIM by default. It provides many connectors for easy integration with third-party systems. Often, customers decide to develop using open-source tools like Spring Boot if there aren't many connectors required to avoid increasing costs. They'll develop this way and then deploy using APIM, the bare minimum needed. It is mainly required for very complicated setups with many connectors. In the implementations I've seen, people often used open-source tools because there weren't many third-party systems involved—just their organization's own systems. From WSO2 Enterprise Integrator, I expect them to bring up more and more connectors in the future. That's the main expectation. Having more connectors in various areas will help us when discussing new requirements. I don't have any specific use case right now, so I can't name a particular connector. But, as new technologies emerge, the relevant connectors should be there for those. WSO2 Enterprise Integrator mainly helps with the integration part, which can be simplified only if you have relevant connectors for whatever you're doing.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It's obvious that the heart of the product lies here. It's comprised of all aspects of ESB (Enterprise Gateway, Adapter, TN, Java) and BPM (task, rules engine)."
"The cloud version of the solution is very easy to set up."
"A product with good API and EDI components."
"I like the solution's policies, transformation, mediation, and routing features."
"In the API gateway, there is a new feature that allows us to filter logs within a payload. This has been a useful feature."
"The messaging part is the most valuable feature."
"The solution's ease-of-use is its most valuable feature, in which complex issues may be resolved."
"When it comes to the user interface, I'm already really used to it. I cannot say anything against it. For me, it's easy to use."
"It's a very complete product. It allows us to network security and add more layers of security to the system."
"WSO2's analytics capability is good, considering the ELC support they provide."
"The productivity is the most valuable feature. It is very easy to write remediations."
"The learning curve for this solution is very good."
"The solution's customer service is good."
"The drag-and-drop features for connectors are very valuable."
"The solution's technical support is very knowledgeable."
"It was mostly easy to set up the product."
 

Cons

"Other products have been using AI and cloud enhancements, but webMethods Integration Server is still lagging in that key area."
"When migration happens from the one release to an upgraded release from Software AG, many of the existing services are deprecated and developers have to put in effort testing and redeveloping some of the services. It would be better that upgrade releases took care to support the lower-level versions of webMethods."
"webMethods Integration Server needs to add more adapters."
"There are things that could be improved with the webMethods API gateway. One thing is that it's too attached to the integration service and we'd like it to be a little bit more independent. We would like for them to separate operations so that it doesn't rely on the bulky integration server and so that it can be used everywhere."
"I am not satisfied with the solution because it takes too much effort to migrate and add new information. The migration could be easier."
"There should be better logging, or a better dashboard, to allow you to see see the logs of the services."
"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."
"It is difficult to maintain."
"They should introduce better pricing for small companies."
"In my opinion, the administration model and interface, of Carbon, are lacking in terms of its features and user experience."
"If I have to buy software, then it becomes expensive for me."
"One of the reasons that we are looking for a replacement is their way of defining integration. The language of the XML structures that I use to describe the integrations are not that standard, and it's not easy to find people who are familiar with this approach."
"The setup can be difficult for those not familiar with the solution."
"You cannot include the validation of XPath."
"The product's price is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The micro integrator should be improved. There is room for enhancement considering alternative integration components."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing is the number-one downfall. It's too expensive. They could make more money by dropping the price in half and getting more customers. It's the best product there is, but it's too expensive."
"There is a license needed to use the webMethods Integration Server."
"The product is expensive."
"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."
"Most of my clients would like the price of the solution to be reduced."
"The price is high and I give it a five out of ten."
"It's a good deal for the money that we pay."
"The price is a little bit high, especially regarding their support."
"The open-source, unsupported version is available free of charge."
"The solution costs about 20,000 or 30,000 euros per year, per instance."
"It is a low-cost solution."
"I rate the product price a six on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price."
"The pricing of WSO2 Enterprise Integrator for enterprise subscriptions can be considered expensive, especially from the perspective of someone who prefers open-source software."
"The cost is better than IBM Cloud Pak."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions are best for your needs.
851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Retailer
7%
Computer Software Company
24%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

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.
What do you like most about WSO2 Enterprise Integrator?
WSO2's analytics capability is good, considering the ELC support they provide.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for WSO2 Enterprise Integrator?
The product has reasonable and competitive pricing for enterprise customers. It is expensive for small businesses especially. They are using the open-source solution, and they find it expensive sin...
What needs improvement with WSO2 Enterprise Integrator?
The main issue with the product is pricing. It uses core-based pricing for WSO2 Enterprise Integrator and API Manager. It would be best if you had APIM by default. It provides many connectors for e...
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
West
Find out what your peers are saying about WSO2 Enterprise Integrator vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.