webMethods.io Reviews

Currently, we're using this solution for the integration server which helps us to integrate with the mainframe.

This solution could be improved by offering subscription based licensing.

We have been using this solution since 2012. 

This is a stable solution.

This is a scalable solution. 

I would rate the initial setup of this solution a three and a half out of five. 

I would like to have training for my team members, but the training offered is a little bit expensive.

When we started using this tool, we compared it with different tools like IBM message broker and Method. 

Some who consider this solution often avoid it due to its price. Overall, webMethods offers a good user experience and is easy to use for our company. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

We have some common services, like REST-based services. We have applications, general social services, and application services. We'll use the solution as a utility to share across the applications selected.

When an organization is, for example, a bank, it can't use an open-source solution - even though open-source solutions are providing more current features. They need to go for a vendor-based solution like this product. 

It's a well-settled, mature platform.

The stability is good.

It can scale. 

We'd like for them to open up to a more cloud-based solution that could offer more flexibility and maybe a better rules engine or more integration with rules engines. The rules should also be more centralized. 

We'd like to see more documentation. We feel like we may be missing some things and would like some documentation to lay out the entire product better. We need better use cases. They don't offer many examples to showcase their product's capabilities. 

I've used the solution for more than a decade. It's been 12 to 14 years at this point. 

The solution is very stable. They have the flow language. We've been using it since version 6.0 and we haven't had any major issues. It's pretty seamless. 

For what we need, it scales quite well. We don't have to worry about having to scale too large as our organization, a bank, is not a very big bank. That said, scalability has never been a problem. 

It's a solution that is generally used by the IT department, not everyone in the company. Maybe between five and ten people use it in total. 

We have to use technical support sometimes. We do, for example, during migrations. We incorporated a business process from webMethods. We are now changing the process in terms of where we were using the database to control the business processes. It is more or less now using the RED METHODs PPM. When changes need to happen we contact them and work with them. 

While they do help, the documentation could be better. 

Positive

The initial setup is very simple and very straightforward. 

That said, open-source solutions are easier. However, we like to have a contractor come in and take care of everything.  

Everything to be set up must be done carefully and properly. Certain changes cannot be incorporated so easily. There might be certain dependencies across certain applications. We take a pretty careful approach every time we are migrating.

We had a third-party assist us with the implementation. It makes everything very easy.

I'm a user of the application. I don't directly handle the licensing. 

I'd warn potential users that, if you get into the ESB sort solution, once you get into it,  coming out of it is very difficult. The dependencies are very high and you are running it in the middle of your architecture. It becomes something you have to budget for and allocate every year. 

I'd rate the solution a seven out of ten due to the complicated installation process. 

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.

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

We can create multiple users and different types of documents. The same document type we can process to the different kinds of partners. They are reusable, we can map to the respective document type.

I have been using webMethods Trading Networks for approximately eight years.

I have found webMethods Trading Networks to be stable.

webMethods Trading Networks is scalable.

For smaller organizations, I would suggest they use the rest APIs and the API gateway approach.

Technical support is very good and user-friendly. For example, if any B2B interface fails we can easily go into the My webMethods Server, where we can see all of the transactions. There we can find the document type or the partner name or receiver's name. If they provide an invoice number, we can use that invoice number, to find the logs to investigate the issue. Additionally, we can find out the resolution after our investigation.

We had a good experience setting up webMethods Trading Networks, it was simple. We did not face any large challenges. However, My webMethod completely depends on the backend table. That table should be properly installed. If it is properly installed, there are no problems configuring My webMethod server.

webMethods Trading Networks is a bit costly compared to others solutions.

This is a good solution for EDA integrations, I would recommend it.

I rate webMethods Trading Networks a nine out of ten.

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. 

The Software AG Designer has been great. It's very intuitive.

The development tools need to be improved. They aren't very effective for us to use as the requirement to use the Software AG Designer is quite big. Sometimes our developer doesn't have a really high-end spec laptop or desktop computer. They sometimes have trouble opening the Software AG Designer to develop something.

The Software AG Designer could be more memory-efficient or CPU-efficient so that we can use it with middle-spec hardware. That would be a great improvement for us in development.

For a new user, the initial setup is hard. 

The quality of the message queuing could be improved. In webMethods they have something called Universal Messaging. Future modules could be included in the Integration Server for different queuing. Currently, they have the basic queuing for messaging. Maybe in the future, they can have built-in different priority queuing to make it a lot faster.

I've been using the solution for about three months. It hasn't been that long just yet.

We are still in development and trial. We didn't reach the point of production where we could really gauge its reliability and therefore we didn't really know how stable it is. We're still in the early stages.

We used to use Red Hat, however, I was not fully in charge of that Red Hat project. I can't speak to any particulars. We didn't really switch. It was a requirement from the existing client to use webMethods as they already had webMethods since version 9.5 and wanted to continue with it.

The initial setup is hard for an early learner like me. It's quite difficult as we were presented with too many features and we didn't really know what was going to be installed.

For example, when we tried to install Integration servers, we had so many other features that needed to be installed, and we don't really know what that was about. By the time we try to install, we forgot to install some other items, such as JDBC for the database. At that point, we needed to install it again. Overall, it's kind of hard for us to use the initial setup.

I'm not really familiar with the commercial side. I don't really know about pricing as I'm only on the operations side.

I'm only a vendor for the customer that already has this operating.

I'd rate the solution at a seven 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.