webMethods.io Reviews

webMethods Integration Server is an easy-to-use solution and does not require a lot of coding.

I have been using webMethods Integration Server for approximately three and a half years.

The stability of the webMethods Integration Server is good.

I rate the scalability of webMethods Integration Server a nine out of ten.

The technical support is very good. We were using the peer services and they were helpful at supporting every aspect of webMethods Integration Server and with ARIS.

Most of my clients would like the price of the solution to be reduced.

We would advise others to at least give webMethods Integration Server a try. Based on the solution's usability and ease of use it is very good. You don't have to do a lot of coding, it is close to an out-of-the-box functioning solution. It makes life easier.

I rate webMethods Integration Server a nine out of ten.

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 configuring of the JWT token would be improved as it is a confusing process. We require more information on this part of the solution. 

This is a stable solution.

This is a scalable solution. 

The initial setup was straightforward and easy. 

 The pricing of this solution is reasonable. 

This solution is flexible and can be used across a number of projects. I have used it for banking and retail. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

I must be blunt. The solution is really hard to use, as the manual and documentation fail to provide proper explanations, especially to people who are first time users of webMethods, Software AG. I struggle with the installation. I sometimes think that the Integration Server is fine and that I had no problem with the API gateway, only to find myself having to redo this, as I lack a dedicated person who can instruct us on installation. I must rely on the Software AG forum. 

The installation process should be simplified for first time users and be made more user-friendly. 

I started using webMethods Integration Server around a month ago. 

I do not have the privilege of contacting technical support, so I try to make use of the information on the internet to self-learn. 

Prior to webMethods Integration Server, we worked with TIBCO BusinessWorks. This we did for another client. As some of the prospect companies already use webMethods Integration Server, we decided to undertake learning its use. 

The installation process should be improved for first time users, as it is quite difficult, and it should be made more user-friendly. 

I cannot comment on the pricing, as this is in the purview of my boss, from whom I received access to download the product. My role is solely to explore the solution's capabilities. 

There are five people, myself included, who are involved in learning about the solution for the initial project. 

A person who plans to use the solution should purchase a license or subscription, so that he will have someone to instruct him on its use. Operationally, I consider the solution to be quite good. I am referring to the PSR involving the middle integration service development. All the features seem to be there, including SSIS, SQL Server Integration Service and UI. There is a need for much scripting of it. On the development side, webMethod is quite good.

As the solution is good overall, I rate it as an eight out of ten. 

We use it for our ERP systems. It is a middleware tool that we use to connect two systems and the outside partners.

It is good for communicating between the systems and for publishing and subscribing. We can easily retrieve data. It is good in terms of troubleshooting and other things.

Some of the things that we use cannot be done in this solution. For these things, we have to either use a Java service or a util service. There is no predefined or existing service that we can use. So, we have to work on the util service and write on top of it.

Its price can also be better. It is pretty costly because they charge us for each transmission.

I have been using this solution for four years.

There have not been any stability issues.

It is not that much scalable. We have around ten people who are using this solution. Only the integration team uses this solution. Other teams have the ERP system.

It is easy to get support. When we posted a query or some issues, they got back to us. They are responsive and knowledgeable.

It is straightforward and easy. You have the documentation, which is easy to follow.

Based on our team discussions and feedback, it is pretty costly because they charge us for each transmission.

I would rate webMethods API Portal a seven out of ten.

We use this enterprise integration application to support web service portals, B2B processes. I'm a consultant and we are customers of webMethods.io.

The internal services that they provide make it easy to work with. It's easy to construct new interfaces like apps, client portals, and so on because they consume the portal services that we provide.

I think rules engine processes and BPM processes should be improved. I think they must accommodate the future of the communication between systems and that is related to web services and the like. 

I've been using this product for 20 years. 

The support is at a medium level of satisfaction. 

The initial implementation was straightforward but then there are multiple requests that follow and that may be more difficult. WebMethods is used to provide services to the portal. Users don't directly use our platform; they use the platform that uses our platform and in that sense we probably have about 1,000 users. We don't have plans to increase usage for now. 

My advice is to pay attention to the human resources because it's difficult to have senior consultants in all areas, it's rare. There aren't many good, experienced consultants in the market. 

I rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We send EDIs to our customers and then to our backend system, SAP. We're basically integrating our external partners with our backend ERP system. We are customers of Built.io. 

The EDI is pretty robust with the IO. The solution they provide at Software AG is pretty good and solid. The integration with SAP is also good. Those are very solid compared to other products.

There is room for improvement because Software AG is leading to the market for the IO, for the iPass so they may have to improve a lot on the other data, like scaling and also some of the connectors to different types of cloud applications. I doubt they have all the connectors to all the applications, like other products have. They have standard connectors like SAP, Salesforce and the others; they need to have Azure, and AWS, all those connectors. In general, improved scalability and connection to different cloud applications would make a big difference. I think that the product is not completely mature and they need to do some work on that. I would like to see a reduced price for the solution. 

I've been using this solution for three years. 

The stability is pretty good.  

The scalability needs to be improved with connectors to the other applications. 

The support team is very accessible and ready to help with any issues and questions. 

The initial setup was a little complex for me because  you need to install Docker and you need to carry out numerous configurations and then send it out to the API gateway. That's one of the things they need to improve. In other solutions, it's like a click of a button, and it does everything for you. It has some limitations, so they need to improve that and make it simpler for installation. 

License costs are quite high. 

Installation can be problematic, but once you've done that, it's easy to use. It's somewhat lacking with CICD, Continuous Integration and Continuous Development. If they want to integrate a Software AG product into a Docker and deploy using Docker and CICD, those kinds of things are lacking.

I would rate this solution a seven out of 10. 

This product is used for application integration. I have implemented this solution for many clients across the world.

The most valuable feature is stability. 

We have been experiencing problems with using Terracotta for clustering, which is something that they should improve.

Technical support is an area where they can improve.

I have been working with this product for approximately 15 years. The organization that I am currently with has been using it for about five.

This is a stable product. The Universal Messaging component had some issues with stability, although they have now been fixed. Over that time, they disappointed the customers for about two years.

We had some issues with clustering as we were trying to scale. We are using Terracotta and it gave us some problems.

The technical support team pays attention to our issues but at the same time, they don't seem to have an in-depth technical background. 

We still using IBM MQ today, although these are legacy integrations.

I have just recently started learning about MuleSoft, personally. From my research, I find that MuleSoft is better in terms of their cloud strategy.

The initial setup is not complex. I would say that it is straightforward.

The vendor is flexible with respect to pricing.

I have found that the home-grown products from this vendor always do pretty well, but when they acquire new products from third-parties, there has been some disappointment.

Overall, this is a pretty good product. In fact, my only real complaint is about support.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use webMethods for integrating our applications.

The best part of webMethods is the out-of-box features that it provides to users, which ultimately saves on effort put into development.

All of the components are very independent but are tied together to give the business value.

The EDI is very eye-catching.

We have been having some non-technical, functional issues, which is why we're exploring other products.

The price should be reduced to make it more affordable.

I have been using webMethods for between 10 and 12 years.

The pricing and licensing costs for webMethods are very high, which is the only reason that we might switch to another product.

As we use webmethods, we continue to look for and research other products that are in the market. We have not decided if we are moving away from it yet, and there is no specific timeframe for making that decision, but we will continue to research alternatives.

Overall, it's a great product.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Our primary use case is for communication between different systems and automation of business processes.

It has enabled us to integrate some systems which needed a form of translation.

The most valuable components of the solution are API management and EDI.

The Flow language mapping tool could be a little easier to use. The interface needs improvement.

The technical support served its purpose. We do not need to use it much.

We used a different solution and we switched because it was a product that was being phased out.

We considered other solutions along with webMethods Integration Server, including BizTalk and Tibco. There were other solutions but they were outside our planned budget.

I would rate this product as an 8 or a 9 out of ten.

There are actually a lot of valuable features. Terracotta is a very good component that enables us to arrange data caching and look at the solid state. Also, the API gateway is a very good component that can handle relevant caching and integrations and also load permitting. There is a message term for this. There are many components that we are currently using and all of them are very important. Also, we will use the DPM for workflow management and digital user transformation in the future.

I think they need to improve the API gateway to be able to replace F5 for example. Also, handling the certificates and their implications with other applications needs some improvement.

We need more dashboards and reporting engines that can provide detailed information for management. In short, we need better analytics.

It is stable, but it depends on the development team, not the platform itself. The platform itself is stable and has been used before by a lot of big companies and entities, but the old integration services are not related or tightly coupled with the platform itself. If you don't have good developers that can implement a good architecture or a good design, you will have issues.

It is easy to scale. We can really scale it up. We have had no issues with this.

Right now, we have an establishment of one organizer per platform but our plan is to use it as the only, single point of integration. The entire enterprise, all applications through all departments, and all IT will use the platform.

We are planning to increase the usage of the platform continuously over the next five years.

Currently, we have an incident open with them, but I think we need to give them more clarifications about it. There may be an issue with the product itself or perhaps it is from the implementation side. We couldn't reach a conclusion yet. We are supported 24 hours a day, it's full support.

Overall we are satisfied with the support because the main advantage is actually that you find someone to help you in time. Anything after is solvable; you will reach a solution. The ability to find someone dedicated is the main advantage.

I have an establishment of the IT department and the solution team but we were migrating from an old architecture and old application integration. It wasn't a platform, but rather a mix of solutions including webMethods but an older version. Now we have migrated from this older version to our new version. But we are migrating among a different integration solution.

Some parts were straightforward, but installing the platform was a little complex, especially since we use Linux instead of Windows. Opening ports, network restrictions, managing the network, and managing the users and components were all a little bit complex.

We did it on our own here, in our company. We have installed it over about four environments: development, SIT, production, and pre-production. All of this has taken about one month to finish.

It is expensive, but we reached a good agreement with the company. It is still a little bit expensive, but we got a better deal than the previous one.

My advice is to put more focus on implementation rather than on the platform itself. This is more important than the platform because finding someone that knows how to fit the components is more important than having very good components that no one knows how to use.

I would rate this as eight out of ten, because of the scope we have already implemented. We didn't face many complex issues or troubles.