IBM webMethods Hybrid Integration Reviews

One of the most important features is that it gives you the possibility to do low-level integration. It provides a lot of features out of the box, and over the years, it has matured so much that any problem that is there in the market can be solved with this product. We can meet any requirements through customizations, transformations, or the logic that needs to be put in. Some of the other products struggle in this aspect. They cannot do things in a certain way, or they have a product limitation, whereas, with webMethods, I have never faced this kind of problem. When clients come to me with any problem, in about 99% of cases, I say, "Yes, it is feasible to do through webMethods." It has reached such a level of flexibility and maturity. Most of the things are available out of the box, and even if something is not available out of the box, we can customize it and deliver it for a client's requirements.

Version control is not very easy. The packages and the integration server are on Eclipse IDE, but you can't compare the code from the IDE. For example, if you are working on Java code, doing version control and deployment for a quick comparison between the code isn't easy. Some tools or plug-ins are there, such as CrossVista, and you can also play with an SVN server where you have to place your package, and from there, you can check, but you have to do that as a separate exercise. You can't do it from the IDE or webMethods server. You can't just right-click and upload your service. CrossVista came up with a solution, which was with the upgraded version of webMethods, but even that was lagging. CrossVista was a bit delayed in coping with the new versions of webMethods. Many times, we get into a situation where we want to know who made a change, when it was made, and how it was before the change. When something that was working well previously suddenly stops working, we want to go back and see who made that change, but because of these version control restrictions, we have to take a longer path. We have to go to the version control system. There is no direct feature in webMethods for that.

There should be more visibility. Currently, Software AG has multiple tools. They have webMethods, and then they have Terracotta as a different product. They have an API governance tool as a different product. They also have Trading Networks. Some of the tools have a very good UI, and some of them don't. For example, earlier, there was a message broker, and you were able to visualize what is happening to a document on the server. You could plug in a broker and see everything. You could see the number of documents that are there on a broker. You could see different queues and topics created. They then moved to Universal Messaging, which is a nirvana-based universal messaging solution. Now, the plug-in is gone, and from the MWS server, you cannot see what is happening in UM. A different view is created for that in Enterprise Manager, which is a desktop UI application. It is not a browser-based application. So, sometimes to monitor different tools, you have to go to different screens. Everything can't be monitored centrally. If you have MWS, not everything is on MWS. Command Central is a different screen altogether. There should be a centralized UI on which every component can be plugged in so that it's easy to control, view, and monitor everything. That's what I really want to have. The Universal Messaging Enterprise Manager is especially very difficult. Sometimes, it takes time to launch on your desktop. It is basically a desktop application, and you need to have a powerful laptop or hardware to launch it. They should make it a browser-based solution.

Their support could also be improved. They could be more responsive and quicker.

I have been working with this solution for almost 12 years.

Its stability is very high. It is very stable, and I've never seen it crash. In my 12 years of career, there have been hardly one or two instances where there was an issue, but that was also because of some issue in the development where we had memory leakage.

Its scalability is good, but you have to plan it in advance. When you are designing your overall infrastructure architecture and delivery framework, you need to put scalability at the core of it. Once your infrastructure is set up, it's not very easy to scale it up or down.

Most of the time, admins interact with the support because they handle day-to-day installations or upgrades. I have had some experience with them. I don't have much experience. I hardly had one or two instances where I had to interact with them. It was not very smooth. It was okay. I ultimately managed to get support, but it was not very straightforward. The ticket lingers on for two days or three days, and there are multiple reassignments before it reaches the right party. Based on the little experience I have had, I would rate them a three out of five.

I have not got a chance to work a lot with other vendors. The first ESB I used was OpenESB, which is Glassfish-based. It was ultimately owned by Oracle when they acquired Sun. I used it back then. I also got a chance to work a bit on microservices and Apigee. Microservices are based on Spring Boot. So, it is a Java product. Apigee is an API governance tool. It is now a Google product. 

Apigee is a very good tool for API management, but a lot of scripting and coding skills are required. You need to be a genuine coder, and you should have an understanding of JavaScript, Python, or whatever else you are using to work with Apigee, whereas with webMethods API governance, even if you're working as a developer or designer for the integration server, you just need to know the basic concepts of programming. You do not need to know .NET, Java, etc. You just need to know about the integration. You should know how a web service works, how an API works, and how SFTP works. The tool itself is based on Java. It also uses Eclipse IDE. It has similarities with Java. If you feel that something is not achievable through what is provided out of the box or you want to do it in a slightly different or optimized way for your requirement, it gives you an option to write a Java service. There is an option to write Java code, but as the product is becoming mature, the requirement for a Java service is becoming very less. The product is evolving based on the learning of the user experience. It is evolving based on the problem statements and the scenarios where the product was not giving sufficient solutions. They kept including any missing functionalities in the new versions. That's why now the requirement to write a Java service is minimal. In a team of 100, if you have two Java resources, that is more than enough.

It depends on what role you are playing. Are you working as a developer or are you working as an admin? For a developer, it's very simple. It's not very complex. You just need an Eclipse-based designer IDE and a browser installed on your machine. That's all. You are all set. However, as an admin, you have to install and maintain all the components. You have to install the patches, and updating these versions is not very smooth. The update manager that they have provided is not very accurate. Sometimes, it fails. If it fails in between, it is very difficult to recover from that failure. So, from an admin's point of view, it is a bit difficult, but from a developer's point of view, there is nothing much.

We generally have webMethods Integration Server on-prem. We are deploying it on-prem, and there is a deployer, and there is also a webMethods IO component, which is more cloud-based. The VM on which it is installed could be hosted somewhere on the cloud, which is a different story, but the product itself doesn't have any cloud capability where you can directly put it on a cloud provider host.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We had quite a heavy use case in terms of transactional traffic, and webMethods was quite fantastic in processing all of those workloads.

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.

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

I've been using webMethods Integration Server for about five years.

The current version is in our private cloud, and we implemented the same solution on-premises and in the cloud. So, we have implemented a hybrid solution.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We implemented it through an in-house team, and it took about four weeks.

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.

A slightly watered down version would be nice so that small, growing businesses could afford it.

We tried to use Oracle, and it just didn't do it for us. We explored MuleSoft, but it was a little bit expensive because of their pricing model, which is per transaction. So, it was also not a viable option for us.

You just need to find the right skills. In our country, we don't have people with qualified webMethods skills, so that's a problem for us in terms of resources. Depending on where you are from and if you don't deal with resource scarcity, webMethods could be a good option for you.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate webMethods at eight. 

I am an integrator of the solution. Our use case is for integration factory for SAP. It is mostly for SAP integration.

The solution is deployed on-premise. We are one version 7.

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's a lot of rework that needs to be done if you go to a newer version.

I have been using this solution for one year.

The solution is stable.

For supporting the solution and installing things, we have maybe 10 or so users. We have no plans to increase usage.

The solution is scalable.

Before using webMethods, I used a different cloud data migration solution for other customers. 

It's a running system, so I haven't had any experience with the installations.

The pricing is a yearly license.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

I would recommend this solution, but it is old fashioned.

While I do not recall exactly which version of webMethods.io Integration we are using, I believe it to be 10 or 12. 

We use the solution in respect of eight or nine integrations that we did with the different applications.

Oracle's self-service capabilities, of which we make extensive use, is the most valuable feature. 

The products, at the moment, are new and there should perhaps be support for the older version of the protocols. While I know that they have the new versions, which are actually needed, I don't believe they have that capacity when it comes to any integration with older systems. This is because I believe us to be more advanced nowadays, with what they are doing for the roadmap of new technologies.

The solution is very stable and we have had no issues with it thus far, two years running. 

The solution is, for sure, scalable and can go to containers and dockers. I believe this to be the plan for the moment. 

I found the technical support to be very good. Although we implemented during the pandemic, us being in need of the resources from a side KSA, we did not face any difficulty, as the resources are available locally. Also, we were able to do the implementation during the peak of the pandemic. 

We had a very good implementation engineer, so the deployment was very straightforward, nothing complex. Once the input and output signatures are aligned between the systems, everything is as it should be. 

The number of people needed for maintenance will vary with the features one is using. We use features which may require two to three people. The same holds true with implementation. 

While I have yet to calculate a return on investment, I have definitely seen one. Owing to the number of users, I would say that it is huge. This is because we have used it for self-services, something which is very productive. 

In the past, we dealt with paperwork, but we now use the solution to digitize everything. We use it as a platform towards the goal of digitization, which was the whole point of the project itself. 

In the past, we had Oracle ESP and we replaced that with Software AG. Contractually, it was Oracle ESB, at which point we got the change request to switch over to Softwares AG webMethods.

I feel the solution provides a very good platform for interconnectivity between the applications, beyond what most users have, which is point-to-point connectivity. This is a good platform for doing multipoint connections and allows one to use the APIs in multiple ways for a variety of purposes and services. It also has caching features, which greatly allows one to cache the data. It has so many caching mechanisms for speeding up the data towards the users. 

This saves the user from having to go to the backend to retrieve the data, as it is available on the ESB, something which is cached and can be released to the user. This saves time going to the backend. 

I rate webMethods.io Integration as a nine out of ten. 

We are using it to orchestrate and configure our APIs.

I believe we are using its latest version.

We needed a tool that was able to orchestrate and help us configure our APIs so that we could maintain and see the heartbeat, traffic, trends, etc.

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.

I have been using this solution for about three years.

I would rate it an eight out of 10 in terms of stability and scalability.

We used Dollar Universe or Dollar U. It was more for batch scheduling. We didn't have anything for maintaining, configuring, or hosting our APIs. It was more of a manual process before that.

It is a little complex, but we're okay with that. MuleSoft is obviously the Cadillac and the best of the best, but we just didn't want to pay that sort of price for what MuleSoft can do.

We partnered with our implementation partner to do the install for us. 

Its maintenance is more of a shifting of duties. There are no new FTEs for it. It is just a shifting of duties.

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

I was the architect of it, and I wasn't personally the one who went deep into it. My advice would be to just partner with an implementation team and make sure that things are documented so that for upgrades, you're not married to them, and you don't have to use them all the time.

I would rate it an eight out of 10.

By linking apps and services, the webMethods Integration Server allows you to automate processes.

I like the stability of the webMethods Integration Server.

I would like to see the price improve.

I have been working with webMethods Integration Server for eight years.

We are currently using version 10. x.

webMethods Integration Server is quite stable, especially given the amount of load it has been handling.

webMethods Integration Server is a scalable solution.

In general, I contact technical support if we are experiencing any problems. They are extremely helpful.

Previously, I had not used another solution.

The installation is straightforward. It's easy.

It can take thirty minutes to deploy depending on the number of components.

It can be installed both on-premises and in the cloud. It has been migrated to the cloud, and we also use it on-premise.

You can complete the installation yourself.

I would like to see better pricing for the license.

We are researching cloud-based solutions, such as AWS and MuleSoft.

I am a user, so I'm not entirely familiar with everything this solution has to offer. I am utilizing one of the technologies that they provide.

Using this solution is dependant upon each area's perspective. I can't exactly say, if you had only one user that it's only for this solution or that solution, but it actually depends upon each other's perspectives.

WebMethods is the recommended solution if you want a stable integration, an ESB platform, and a B2B.

I am unfamiliar with cloud-based solutions or their environment. We are exploring their options and services.

I would rate webMethods Integration Server a nine out of ten.

The API Gateway is very good.

The Integration Server is very good.

Terracotta is very useful.

There are many components that I have used.

It's very flexible and a good platform to use.

There should be better logging, or a better dashboard, to allow you to see see the logs of the services. 

Also, storing the message bodies in the database and allow you to search them would be a nice feature to have.

These features should be enhanced to facilitate the work for the developer.

I have been working with webMethods Integration Server for four years.

webMethods Integration Server is a scalable product.

It is being used only by the developers, it's not for public users.

We have three developers in our organization who are using it.

Technical support is very good.

Previously, in another company, I worked with webMethods Broker.

The price is a little bit high, especially regarding their support.

The support fees are very high and we don't need such huge support.

I think anybody who is implementing this product should learn about the balancing and the API portal that is going to be used. You should have a good developer that is able to use the platform and understands most of the capabilities that it provides.

Overall, it's a really good product.

I would rate webMethods Integration Server a nine out of ten.

The API Gateway and Portal go together. It's not one or the other. Essentially they're just leveraged for overall enterprise API management facilities, being able to go on the API development life cycle, being able to go on the API run time, API monetization, things like that. Usually, most organizations, most of our customers use APIs to supplement other architectures, typically microservices-based application architecture, and SaaS integration etc.

API Gateways and API Management in general first and foremost standardizes and democratizes the Integration problem across all IT domains. API Gateway specifically allows for centralizing all integration interfaces to a simple style and normalizes the patterns of security, access control, cross-domain compatibility across the enterprise. API Gateways also enable enterprise integration across various public cloud infrastructure and enable Hybrid nature of Enterprise IT.

On the API gateway, I would say the runtime metrics that the gateway collects are definitely useful.

The product provides a lot of insights into the operations of the API itself at runtime.

The cloud version of the solution is very easy to set up.

The stability has been good. The performance is strong.

The scalability is excellent overall.

We have found the technical support to be very helpful and responsive when we have questions.

In terms of improvements, maybe on the API monetization side, having users able to create separate API consumption plans and to be able to throttle API execution against those consumption plans at run time could be better. Those are abilities that might need some improvement.

The on-premises setup can get a little complex, needs to be more simplified.

I've been dealing with the solution over the last three or so years at this point.

The stability and performance are excellent. 3G really comes strong on an enterprise-scale in terms of stability and performance. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. We find it to be reliable.

We have found that the solution scales quite well.

API management is all about internally leveraging the software development life cycle, across various domains. Typically, most customers, when they adopt API management, they are delivering it for their entire IT software development organization, not just the integration team. The application team and the database team and so on will also use it. Everybody will be on board. Sometimes we have seen customers onboard about 60, 70 developers and then maybe a few additional external consumers. However, we also see some customers with very small teams of around 10 people. It works well for both.

We've dealt with technical support in the past. There's always that possibility, especially with newer versions, that we might run into some technical issues. However, tech support and issue management are both pretty straightforward.

You can create tickets with the portal on Software AG through Software AG's support portal. They respond within 24 hours usually, and try to resolve the issue quickly. Sometimes the issues might need a product or a quote fix, which might take a day or two. Otherwise, they might be able to look through the knowledge base and give us a solution immediately. 

They have a pretty good response time and offer quality service. We're pretty satisfied with the level of support.

In terms of setting up the solution, the solution offers both cloud and on-premises options. The on-premise license and setup can be done yourself. That can be a little complex depending on what is the overall deployment architecture that is needed. 

However, webMethods API also comes in a cloud form, the webMethods.io, and that is just a subscription. Most of our customers can just subscribe to it and they don't really have to worry about the setup. Everything is already pre-set.

Typically, while the on-premises setup is somewhat complex, we don't really require people to be continuously monitoring it once it's launched. The setup itself might take less than a week or two, depending on the size. 

In terms of maintenance, unless there's a lot of APIs subsequently developed and running, you don't really have too much. Once the customer starts developing a lot of APIs and puts a lot of those APIs into production, that's what will contribute to the support and monitoring needs of the team. 

Typically one person can handle deployment and maintenance. Of course, the cloud doesn't really require the same amount of work.

The pricing can fluctuate. I don't have the numbers on hand, however, I can say that they're somewhere in the middle in terms of pricing. They aren't the most expensive or the cheapest. They're priced right for their capabilities and the quality of service as well as the stability and performance on offer. They're well priced for their general offering.

We are partners with Software AG. We've been a partner for more than 20 years now.

I'm a consultant. I work with a consulting company. 

I'm familiar with API Gateway, API Portal, and Active Transfer.

The API Portal and Gateway form the layer of API management, however, usually, API management does not go on its own. There's typically some level of an integration layer behind it as well. Either a customer is applying an API management layer on top of an existing integration layer, or, if not, a customer is starting fresh and has to apply both layers subsequently, or consecutively, kind of like creating an API management layer, and integration, a hybrid integration layer. 

Both go together, especially in data integration, or in application integration and cloud application integration.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

The API Gateway and the Portal go together. It's not one or the other. Essentially they're just leveraged for overall enterprise API management facilities, being able to go on the API development life cycle, being able to go on the API run time, API monetization, things like that. Usually, most organizations, most of our customers use APIs to supplement other architectures, typically microservices, based application architecture, and so on.

On the portal, the user management and the API life cycle management are definitely robust. 

They have nominal features for API. They have a self-serve API portal as well. That means consumers for APIs can come onto the portal and learn about various APIs that they can put into the consumption model. 

The initial setup of the cloud version of the solution is very easy.

The solution can scale.

The product is quite stable.

Technical support is responsive and quite helpful.

We have found the pricing of the solution to be fair.

On the API monetization side, being able to create separate consumption plans and throttle all those consumption plans towards the run time. Those are abilities that might need some improvements.

The on-premises setup can be difficult.

I've been dealing with the solution over the last three or so years at least.

The stability and performance are definitely very good. 3G really comes strong on an enterprise-scale in terms of stability and performance. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches.

The solution can scale quite well. A company that needs to scale can do so.

API management is all about internally leveraging the software development life cycle, across various domains. Typically, most customers, when they adopt API management, they are delivering it for their entire IT software development organization, not just the integration team. The application team and the database team and so on will also use it. Everybody will be on board. Sometimes we have seen customers onboard about 60, 70 developers and then maybe a few additional external consumers. However, we also see some customers with very small teams of around 10 people. It works well for both.

We've dealt with technical support in the past. There's always that possibility, especially with newer versions, that we might run into some technical issues. However, tech support and issue management are both pretty straightforward. 

You can now create a ticket on an issue with the portal on Software AG through Software AG's support portal. They respond within a day, and at least try to resolve the issue. Sometimes the issues might need a product or a quote fix, which might take a day or two. Otherwise, they might be able to look through the knowledge base and give us a solution immediately. In general, they have a decent response time and a decent quality of service. We're satisfied. 

In terms of setting up the solution, there are two ways. The first is that you can have an on-premise license and set up this conference yourself. That can be a little complex depending on what is the overall deployment architecture that is needed. On the other side, webMethods API also comes in a cloud form, the webMethods.io, and that is just a subscription. Most of our customers can just subscribe to it and they don't really have to worry about the setup. Everything is already pre-set.

Usually, while the on-premises setup is fairly complex, we don't really require people to be continuously monitoring it once it's launched. The setup itself might take less than a week or two, depending on the size of the enrollment. In terms of maintenance, unless there's a lot of APIs subsequently developed and running, you don't really have too much. Once the customer starts developing a lot of APIs and puts a lot of those APIs into production, that's what will contribute to the support and monitoring needs of the team. Typically one person can handle deployment and maintenance. Of course, the cloud doesn't really require the same amount of work. 

The pricing fluctuates. I don't have the numbers with me, however, I can say that they're not the cheapest in the market, and they're not the most expensive either. They fall right in the middle, and they're priced right for their capabilities and the quality of service as well as the stability and performance on offer. They're well priced for their general offering.

We are partners with Software AG. We've been a partner for more than 20 years now.

I'm an IT consultant. We are a consulting company, most of my teams are certified in Software AG technology, and we've worked for a lot of customers leveraging that technology.

We typically deal with the most up-to-date versions of the solution, although occasionally, one or two might be a version behind.

A lot of the API Portal and Gateway form the layer of API management, however, usually, API management does not go on its own. There's typically some level of an integration layer behind it as well. Either a customer is applying an API management layer on top of an existing integration layer, or, if not, a customer is starting fresh and has to apply both layers subsequently, or consecutively. It's kind of like creating an API management layer, and a hybrid integration layer. Both go together, especially in data integration, or in application integration and cloud application integration.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

We're a healthcare technology organization and that space has a great deal of integration work, so we use webMethods to help us manage and develop integration solutions for various healthcare-related needs. Those include HL7 messages, the new interop messages, the new CMS directives for data blocking, Affordable Care Act integrations, and integrations with other health systems.

Our particular product is a SaaS, multi-tenant environment that's on-prem but moving to cloud. It is used by hundreds of healthcare providers to run their businesses.

webMethods provides application integration, data integration, business-to-business communications, APIs, and microservices. We use it for all of those purposes. Having that range of features in a single platform is very important, because that means we have a single platform to learn and use. It reduces training costs. It reduces overall infrastructure costs. It even makes hiring easier because we have one set of resources we need to hire for.

In a very fast moving space—which is weird to say about healthcare, but it has certainly become that in the last few years, and especially in the last year—the ability to move very quickly and to reuse components and to connect to almost anything have become pretty paramount. The solution’s adapters and connectors provide the fastest way to build an integration. The demand curve for integrations goes up daily, so our ability to perform and build integrations is a key core competency.

Because we use most of the platform, it's hard to call out a most valuable feature, but it's probably the ease of mapping which 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.

The ease of deploy and maintenance of integrations is a key element for us. If the strength is the mapping tool and the ability to change quickly, and having all of the components that we can then alter as we need to, the result is that it allows us to react very quickly to changing business demands. For example, we have a need to send the same types of data to many different integration partners, and because we're able to tailor the delivery to each endpoint, but use one master flow, it allows great economies of scale.

I'd like to see the admin portal for managing the integration server go up a level, to have more capabilities and to have a more modern web interface.

We've been using webMethods Integration Server for four or five years.

It has been very stable.

We find that it scales very well. It's a true enterprise tool.

Our usage will increase as our business grows. It's a core part of our infrastructure.

The tool is very good and we haven't really needed to engage with support enough to know if their support for the solution’s adapters and connectors brings long-term stability.

Support has been there in the couple of times we've needed them. We have gotten a fine response. They completely meet our expectations of support for an enterprise tool. But typically, there's no need for them.

We had a couple of competing platforms: Systems Integration from IBM, and MuleSoft in the open source world. We switched to webMethods for the support from the company and the range and depth of available adapters and connectors. It gave us more capabilities.

We used an integration partner to help us stand it up, so the setup didn't really impact us. We had a total of two or three people involved on our side. We used The Normandy Group and our experience with them was very positive.

It took us about three months to have the first integration running. The implementation strategy was 

• install tool
• get it to work
• build first integration.

Those same two people in our organization are the ones involved in the day-to-day maintenance of Integration Server. We have two webMethods technical resources who are responsible for about 400 integration points or integration services.

We have seen return on investment from using it. We have to compute that every year, and the value is always greater than the cost. It's just that every year it gets harder to justify that value against the competitors. 

Keeping in mind that we haven't explored the microservices completely, which has been a key element of their innovation recently, 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.

I'm familiar with Mirth, in the healthcare space, and IBM SI is still a very large tool. Various other IBM platforms that will do similar things. The space has gotten more crowded over the years.

The single biggest differences between webMethods and the other solutions are the range of the offering, the connectors, the stability of the system, the fact that it is an enterprise-grade system, and that you can basically do anything you need with it. 

The con is the fact that you are paying for the best-of-breed solution in the space, and the expense of it can be quite high. When you couple that with the fact that adding Software AG services increases the cost very fast, there is a real detriment to our adding additional Software AG offerings to the portfolio. The sheer expense makes us reluctant to do that. It's still justifying its cost for us, currently, but I feel that there are open source solutions that are charging up very fast. Also, finding resources who are trained in the tool is becoming increasingly hard as they become increasingly more in-demand.

It's a very valuable and a very powerful tool, but it's a tool that you have to dedicate resources to, to learn and to use well. Use an integration partner to help get it stood up and in use in your organization faster. That is something that is very valuable. And then dedicate staff to learn it. This isn't one more tool in the toolbox. This has to become someone's toolbox.

The comprehensiveness and depth of its connectors to packaged apps and custom apps is fairly low, but its ability to build what you need is very high. The value of the tool is the Lego block nature of it, so instead of being framed into set paths, we can build what we need.

I would rate it at seven out of 10. The cost-to-feature value is what brings that number down. The difficulty in finding webMethods-trained resources in North America also brings that number down. The powerful, scalable, stable nature of the offering brings that number up.