webMethods.io Reviews

This is an integration tool along with its having IoT applications and data integration applications.

The main benefit of this product is the speed of the development process and the speed of the business. It has a good integration server and a very good API portal. WebMethods has the tools to develop everything you need and the custom code is relatively easy. It makes the development, the product, and the business more efficient. This is a very strong and useful tool.

The orchestration is not as good as it should be and needs to be improved. 

I've been using this solution for three years. 

The stability is very good. 

Scalability is very good on the cloud but a little difficult for the on-prem version because it requires the creation of one integration server and booking the code on a second integration server, and creating a cluster between them. 

I've contacted technical support many times. Their response is very fast and they provide good service. We've only ever had one time where they were unable to solve an issue we had. 

The initial setup is easy. We deploy both on-prem and cloud, and both are straightforward taking less than 10 minutes. For on-prem implementation, there is a deployer and for the cloud, we use OpenShift. The deployment requires one person and the product doesn't require any specific follow-up maintenance. 

When compared to other solutions, we found the task engine to be better in webMethods along with the ease of development. 

I recommend this solution and rate it nine out of 10. 

The webMethods API Gateway is utilized to assist our banking clients in integrating with the bank via the API.

The solution has helped improve our organization by recommending APIs and providing easy-to-use security controls. Additionally, it identifies similarities between multiple cases, thereby avoiding redundant code and implementation.

The developer portal is a valuable feature.

The gateway server itself can improve the message queue implementation by considering the top ten web security controls.

I would like to request the integration of response caching into the memory database, which would eliminate the need to construct logic within the API itself, and instead implement it directly in the gateway.

The price has room for improvement.

I have been using webMethods API Gateway for a couple of years.

I give webMethods API Gateway a ten out of ten for stability.

I give webMethods API Gateway a seven out of ten for scalability. We can scale the solution, but it is a bit complicated since it is not saved in a Microsoft architecture, which would make scaling much simpler.

We previously used Open API and Google Apigee but our organization technically and commercially preferred to go with webMethods API Gateway.

I give the initial setup a seven out of ten. The deployment took a couple of weeks. The deployment required one solution architect and two technical consultants.

The implementation was completed by Software AG.

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

I give webMethods API Gateway a seven out of ten.

We currently have 40 people and four developers using webMethods API Gateway.

We plan to increase our usage tenfold within the next few years.

I would advise a POC to see if there is a business case. I suggest starting small and scaling out as required.

One of our clients is a chain management company. They have many APIs which do a lot of integrations, including B2B integrations. For that particular client, our APIs are on APIs check and handing the deals and restock. Everything is hosted on our API gateway. They can use a scan and access those APIs and do operations for sales orders and invoices.

The most valuable aspect of this solution for me has been the configuration-based UI. Once you get the hang of it, it enables you to easily develop an API. In addition, it has many in-built policies that are quite handy. We are also able to write our custom policies. I also like the daily logging option. Another handy feature is Kibana with the dashboard, which outlines the day-to-day operations in great detail.

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 would like for this to be included in the features since the client I work with always tends to avoid the solution. And if the client does not have existing interfaces with it, they choose not to proceed. 

I have been using this solution for more than 30 years.

I would rate the stability of this solution a 10, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

My impression is that this solution is scalable. I wouldn't say auto-scalable because of the on-premises part.

I would rate their technical support a seven, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best. The reason for this rating is that they are good, but they could still be improved. There is no premium support, and the regular support responds within a day or so.

Neutral

I would rate the initial setup process a six, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best. I would say it's not too easy, but also not too difficult. It can be complex if you don't have experience with it and, in that case, you will not find the setup easy. 

For us, the deployment was fast; it took maybe a couple of minutes. One person can do the deployment on their own. The maintenance is done I think quarterly or every six months through patching.

Our model of deployment is on-premises.

I would rate the pricing plan of this solution a seven, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best. The licensing is on a yearly basis.

This solution is a good fit for small, medium, and larger enterprise companies.

I would advise other people looking into this solution to get it because it adds an additional feature to the capabilities of your web method templates. Also, it uses existing web flow services to enable you to leverage your existing services that are already paired on your on-premises system or into the traditional system of your work method.

Overall, I would rate this solution an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

I'm using the product every day, and I'm working on many different projects. Most use cases are for using webMethods Integration Server as a middleware software or a middleware platform that is connecting to at least two different endpoints. It can be from one side, for example, database, web service, SAP, or any kind of connection, including Salesforce, and the other side can be the same. We are just establishing connections between these systems and doing some transformations and modifications of data in the Integration Server so it can be sent from one side to another.

Clients are mostly using it in order to connect some of their internal systems or to connect to some external systems and some other partner companies. Its benefit is that it's really useful for monitoring and tracking all the activities. And it's important, due to all the flows, all the data, go through this ESB, Enterprise Service Bus. 

The most important thing when using it is that there is a really good community from the producers, Software AG, and the Empower platform, where you can find almost every kind of error or problem that you face. You can find a solution right there in the community.

There is also typical support where you can create a ticket if you are not able to find the issue on your own. If it's something new, then they will approach you and help you in resolving it. 

The best features are these adapters. Software AG developed many different adapters for the usual databases, et cetera. I was not using Salesforce much. However, it's really handy that you have an adapter for these popular platforms. It's just plug-and-play.

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.

When there is some issue or bug, they work on the development of that. And then, in the next release, they just fix it. I had a few situations when I faced some issues, and then I had to report them. Within the next three weeks, typically, it just gets fixed.

For code version control, you need to use some external software. It would be good to have it just built into the product so that you don't have to use anything external.

The interface could be modernized. 

I've been using the solution for about five years. 

If it's set up properly and if you do it in a good way in large-scale organizations, you need to have a maintenance team that is doing the maintenance and support. If it's working properly and updated properly with the latest versions of updates, then there should be no issues with using it. It is reliable. One of the main benefits of Integration Server is that it is reliable.

Our entire company uses the solution. There might be 100 people using it on a daily basis. 

Scalability is one of the main purposes of the product - scalability meaning that it can adapt to small customers, clients, and even to bigger systems and clients with a lot of data going through the Integration Server. 

Technical support is really good. They are replying really quickly. In a day or two, you can get a response for your issue, or probably even quicker if you mark it as urgent. 

For me, it's fine. I had some contact with Software AG support. They wrote really helpful. And a few times we even had some meetings with screen-sharing sessions so they could help and see the issue. It was really nice. 

I know there are a few really great options on the market; however, I do not have experience with them. 

When it comes to deploying the Integration Server, you just need to follow the documentation, which is really good. The documentation created by Software AG for using and working with each of the products is really nice, and I'm satisfied with that. For the first time you use it, you need to install the Integration Server on Windows or Linux machine or whatever, and if you follow the steps via the documentation, it should not create any issues.

The deployment can be done by one person. It might take an hour or two.

If you are installing many Integration Servers in a cluster, then these things take time to configure the clusters and all other setups related to the network. That said, for the basic product, if you want to use it just for your own purposes, if it's just one instance, it does not take much of your time to get it up and running.

There isn't much maintenance needed after the solution is live. 

The solution was deployed in-house. It's not rocket science. It's easy, and you can do it just by following the instructions. It's a really user-friendly installation.

I'm working in the development part of the company. I'm not aware of the prices.

I would say it's an affordable product. When it comes to big organizations, it's for sure affordable.

We are a Software AG partner.

I'm mostly using the latest version. I was using version 9.9 when I started. Then I was going through all the versions, including 10.1, 10.3, 10.5, and 10.7. Now, 10.11 is the latest one. However, I'm not sure that I started working on that one in any of my projects. 

We are a partner company of Software AG, the producer of webMethods.

New users should look for a list of references and companies that are using this product. 

For a large-scale organization, this is a must-have product. When it comes to Integration Server and the Enterprise Service Bus as the product which needs to be implemented in an organization, it has many benefits like properly monitoring, tracking, and controlling all the flows in the company and outside the company. It's a great product to have.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We don't use webMethods Integration Server directly, but we use another offering from one of our vendors. They have built a layer on top of the webMethods Integration Server and that's a solution we have been using.

webMethods Integration Server is the underlying component, but our software vendor, has made some enhancements to the webMethods Integration Server and they offered it to us. That's what we are currently using along with some of the other solutions in the supply chain space.

Their offering is more of an integration framework across all their systems and this is how we have been using the system. webMethods Integration Server is our primary integration tool across all the solutions that we have in our supply chain.

The most valuable feature of webMethods Integration Server is all the capabilities it provides. We leverage most of the features, that they have offered to us. Our vendor has made some additional features on top of the webMethods Integration Server and we use all the features together.

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. 

The migration of the code between environments could be better. If they come up with some kind of a continuous integration process to promote the code from one life cycle to the other, that may ease the day-to-day activity for us.

I have used webMethods Integration Server for approximately seven years.

webMethods Integration Server is a stable solution for our usage.

The scalability of the webMethods Integration Server is good.

Our IT team is using the solution in my organization.

We plan to increase our usage in the future.

I have not needed to use webMethods Integration Server support.

We used other solutions before using webMethods Integration Server.

The maintenance team needed for webMethods Integration Server is minimal.

We have seen a return on investing using webMethods Integration Server.

I rate our return on investment for webMethods Integration Server a four out of five.

The solution has been doing the job for us, at least with respect to the landscape and the integrations we have in place. However, it is on a case-by-case basis.

I rate webMethods Integration Server an eight out of ten.

Most of our customers are real estate development companies, and they build many projects in Saudi Arabia. Most of their projects are about Smart Cities or Smart destinations. The use case was about integrating different Smart City technologies and enterprise applications. For government services, the use case was integrating webMethods.io Integration into different government systems serving residents. For example, the Ministry of Interior uses the solution for passport and ID services, so different government systems are integrated.

We used webMethods.io Integration as an integration platform. It accommodates Enterprise Service Bus, integration server and API gateway. We took the complete platform and the integration server as part of the platform to integrate or receive data from the API gateways, integrated with the Enterprise Service Bus.

The solution allowed us to integrate applications and IoT devices because it has an IoT event processing layer. It provides a flexible integration within the IoT systems because most of the applications we work with are related to the IoT and Smart City technologies. So, there's hardware, software and application integration, providing hosting flexibility.

Some platform providers host their applications in Amazon AWS or Microsoft Azure, which sometimes creates challenges for data governance because of regulations.

Any solution needs continuous development in integration and processing.

We used the solution for more than a year for different projects. We used the latest version and stopped using it four months ago. It was deployed on private cloud in the customer cloud infrastructure.

The solution is stable. If there were any minor problems, we resolved them.

It can be scaled up and support multi-tenancy. However, it is difficult to maintain.

I rate the technical support a six out of ten.

The initial setup was straightforward.

They don't have a fixed price, and the pricing model is transaction-based. I rate the pricing a seven out of ten, with one being the worst and ten being the best.

I rate this solution a seven out of ten. I recommend it, but it depends on the use case. I do not see any gaps with the platform.

We use ActiveTransfer to call internal APIs and transfer files from a third party to the cloud for application purposes and from a third party to on-prem. We also send files to the third party sometimes. We have a payments system and transfer files across the system to make customer domains.

We have on-prem, cloud, and hybrid deployments and transfer files across all of them. We're working with webMethods cloud, AWS, and Azure. Our eight-member team is using webMethods MFT and other integrations, and we have a shared team to work on multi-technologies, like web issues, Snowflake, webMethods MFTs, etc. 

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. 

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. 

Also, when we're dealing with massive files, ActiveTransfer requires huge amounts of RAM, but if would be helpful if we could customize the compression and encryption to squeeze that data and reduce the size to save on system resources.

We have been using ActiveTransfer for six or seven years.

ActiveTransfer is stable.

ActiveTransfer is easy to scale and use also, which is why we recommend it. We have a script-based file transfer, but we use it less compared to MFT.

webMethods' technical support is excellent. When we have issues with third parties, networks, corrupted files, etc. we send the logs and they take care of it.

The difference between webMethods and Control-M is that Control-M schedules automation tools and checks to see if the file is there. Our team is currently using Control-M. 

If you use MFT and you've cleared the MFT events, it has to schedule through Control-M because all the jobs running through the solution end to end. Control-M has an AMF advance remain file transfer, where you can create a source and target profile.

Setting up ActiveTransfer is straightforward. I rate it eight out of 10 for ease of setup. As for maintenance, we have a monitoring mechanism in place and an automated process for large-scale transfer. If the current available space at the target is less than 30 percent, we have an alert.

We do it all in-house based on the customer's request. We'll keep all the files in the staging for one week. If necessary, we will remove it or move it to some other location. This kind of housekeeping and maintenance we do.

I'm not aware of the exact cost. That product team at my company is responsible when we need any maintenance, new products, upgrades, etc. 

I rate webMethods ActiveTransfer eight out of 10. They only need to improve a few minor things to bring it to the current market standard. My recommendation to webMethods is to add more flexibility to the file-watching mechanism to reduce the load on the RAM and CPU to a minimum, which will help when we are dealing with large numbers of massive files, especially in the retail environment.

We used to deal with millions of small files. When you are dealing with these kinds of files, you need to ensure that there is an internal reconciliation process. When you're reading and transferring thousands of files, you use a parallel instead of sequential mechanism to ensure all the files reach a target and that the reconciliation process is done automatically.

We have a lot of use cases for this product. Initially, when we bought this product from Software AG, it was only for a specific project. But, we did watch for other opportunities where it could be used for integration and that's what happened.

Our business model has many verticals, so it's used across the enterprise. The main function is to provide application integration within the company. We have more than 60 applications and at the moment, it's talking to more than 30 applications and integrating them. In this context, it is used by our sales team and in a lot of automations.

Our second use case is to provide Write as a Service. We write any custom service using webMethods and then expose it to others as a REST service.

Another thing that we use this solution for is managed file transfers.

We have this solution deployed in a hybrid environment. It is available in our private cloud, where it is installed in AWS, and we also have it in our data center.

This solution has improved our productivity and efficiency in pretty much all of our applications. There are some currently-running automation projects where we are going to have to transform data and at the moment, it is being done manually. This is another case where we will implement webMethods to improve productivity.

We automate our sales cycle using API orchestrations. When sales come through, for example, we register them and enroll them in the policy. All of this is done within webMethods and it works well.

With respect to the comprehensiveness and depth of connectors that are available, they have a lot of traditional ones available. They are constantly adding new ones, which is good to see. However, what we found is that we can develop them very easily. Nowadays, pretty much everything is REST so it is easy to develop your own. We do not have a license for many of the connectors. One of them that we have is Salesforce, which was what we had originally envisioned.

Then, what happened when we needed another connector is that we reasoned that rather than buying additional ones, we would instead create our own. Ultimately, we found that it was quite easy to do and in my experience, it is always better to use your own because the out-of-the-box connections have limitations. This is what we found with the connector for SuccessFactors; we were better off building our own because there are no constraints when we do it that way.

This solution encompasses a range of features, which is important to us. We use it heavily for application integration and APIs, somewhat less for data integration, business to business communication, and we are trialing microservices. Although we do not yet heavily use the microservices feature, we do like that it provides it.

We plan to expand our usage of microservices because, in the AWS world, we want to make things auto-scalable. This is what we are playing around with and although we do not yet have it in production, the plan is to use it more.

Modifying and redeploying integrations is easy to do. This has made us more agile and the fact that we can churn things quicker has helped the business.

There are a few things about this product that we definitely like. It is very robust. If you build it nicely, you can't go wrong with it. It's rock solid.

The development is very fast. If you know what you're doing, you can develop something very easily and very fast.

For the latest services, the product is lacking in terms of connectors. For example, there are a lot of SaaS providers and if you look for the connectors out-of-the-box, they are definitely not going to be there. They have a lot of traditional options but they are basic. If you have an advanced use case then you are better to build your own.

For the most part, this solution supports the latest standards and makes it possible to plug in modern tooling and third-party products for automation and innovation. However, there are some things that it doesn't support and we find ourselves having to wait for a newer version. For example, when we were using version 9.10, it did not support OAuth.

In general, I would like to see the vendor release newer features sooner. Or, it would be helpful if we can use a newer feature but don't have to upgrade the entire product.

The UI for the admin console is very old. It hasn't been updated for years and is pretty much the same one that we started with. This is something that could be refreshed and made more modern.

We have been using the webMethods Integration Server for almost six years.

I would rate the stability very high. Once it is running, it's very stable.

The webMethods Integration Server is a tier-one application and if it's down, impacts pretty much everything. When it runs, no one knows about it but if it goes down, everyone screams. It is very crucial.

With our current licensing, it's very easy for us to scale. With our older licensing model, it was very hard. This is definitely something that I would highlight. I'm very happy with our current setup because we can scale and it's more of a constraint of your commercials rather than a product constraint when it comes to scalability.

We purchased a premium support package but to this point, we have not greatly depended upon it. In our day-to-day business, we haven't had to deal with them very often, which is a good thing. We generally resolve things within our team and don't generally need to rely on others. There are only a few issues that we have contacted technical support about, such as when we were having issues with the upgrade. Also, if there is something that we can't find then we will contact them.

In general, when I compare their support with other vendors, I would not rate them high. The customer experience with support is an area that needs improvement. The reason I say this is that regardless of the issue you raise, even if it is not necessary, they ask a lot of questions.  

Prior to webMethods, we were not using an integration solution. We were a .NET shop and we were using it to accomplish the same tasks. However, it was not to the full extent that webMethods is doing because its capabilities are less.

The reason we adopted webMethods is that a new project was coming and when we estimated the cost, we found that developing everything in .NET was cumbersome. At that point, we started to look for a tool and settled on webMethods.

We chose webMethods over MuleSoft because of how quick and easy it is for developing. It is simple and easy to use. The commercials is definitely another reason that we chose it. This was the product that was recommended after the technical evaluation was complete.

We also use webMethods.io, although that does not fall under Integration Server.

The initial setup is of medium complexity, although it depends on your scenario. If you have a simple use case to just integrate, it's easy. The actual installation is very straightforward but we had some complexity because of the zones.

We had multiple DMZ zones and we have a PCI zone. This meant that there were a lot of firewall rules that needed to be created. It was a greenfield project, so we had to build everything in addition to the webMethods aspect. The project was definitely complex. However, the webMethods setup in isolation was very straightforward. If you just focused on, "Okay, this is the one that you have to install." It's straightforward. If you know what you're doing, it's easy.

Upgrading is something that we can't do in a very fast manner. It's not like we are going to upgrade every six months. We have to wait a while. On the other hand, that's where the microservices architecture is good because anytime something new is released, we can upgrade to the latest.

We completed the initial setup in-house.

We evaluated MuleSoft and webMethods. There may have been others but these were the top choices. When we asked for demonstrations, these were the products that we looked at.

This product provides us with a single hybrid-integration platform for all of our integration needs. We do have another product but it is for a very specific use case, and it is separate because of the licensing. Otherwise, webMethods is our go-to for integration.

On the topic of development time, this product can save you time but it depends on what you're comparing it to. For example, if you are comparing it to having no platform, where all of the integrations have to be developed from scratch, then this product will definitely save you a lot of time. The undertaking would be massive. If instead, you are comparing it to another product such as MultSoft, then it will be a different answer. It is tricky to estimate because it depends on the tool.

This is a product that the vendor keeps adding things to. Sometimes, we have to wait until the next version comes out before there is support for what we want to do, but there hasn't been anything major.

My advice for anyone who is implementing this solution is to spend some time thinking about how it will be used. I have seen instances where the product was being used and didn't work properly. If it is designed nicely then it will work wonders, so spend some time thinking about the design and how it will be used and it's never going to have any issues.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.