The solution's licensing cost is too high. I don't know about the solution's licensing cost, but it would definitely be based on the number of concurrent sessions we have. If four files are sent simultaneously, it amounts to four sessions. Similarly, if I wanted to send 40 files, I should have the license for 40 sessions. Only then can we send the data from 40 files from source to destination at the same time.
The price and licensing of Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct is expensive. The containers can allow the customer to have flexibility in the ability to move the container on the cloud. They have to purchase all the containers that they need. Even if most of them can be switched off, it's quite expensive compared with the other offering. The other offering that is related to PBU and based on the power of the machines, sometimes it's quite expensive for the use case that we found. Other vendors, such as Primero, which sold specific license packages, such as by protocol, are most competitive than the licensing of IBM. I used to offer this solution when the customer had more than one use case. One business case, or some business case with a lot of budgets or a lot of revenue. Otherwise, I used to propose different solutions, such as Software AG, AppSystem, or Primero, that are good challengers because they are smaller solutions for smaller businesses and use cases.
Learn what your peers think about Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: April 2026.
Manager 3rd Party Application Support at a tech services company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
May 12, 2021
This is the cheapest of the product's line of solutions. Their licensing model is based upon the size of the hardware that it's sitting on. Therefore, the more robust hardware, the bigger your license costs will be. Companies can try to get into negotiations with them. However, that's not simple. That's not a reflection on the product. That's a reflection of the relationship with the company.
Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct offers robust security and encryption for fast, reliable file transfers across platforms. It supports large files and diverse protocols, integrating seamlessly with Sterling Control Center for real-time monitoring.Known for its stability and scalability, Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct handles complex data transfer needs in banking and other sectors. Users value its integration capabilities, automation features, and flexibility with encryption. Checkpoint...
Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct is an expensive platform.
The solution's licensing cost is too high. I don't know about the solution's licensing cost, but it would definitely be based on the number of concurrent sessions we have. If four files are sent simultaneously, it amounts to four sessions. Similarly, if I wanted to send 40 files, I should have the license for 40 sessions. Only then can we send the data from 40 files from source to destination at the same time.
The pricing model is excellent. It is not expensive.
I don't have much idea about the price. Customers take care of the price. We are only supporting projects for customers.
The price and licensing of Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct is expensive. The containers can allow the customer to have flexibility in the ability to move the container on the cloud. They have to purchase all the containers that they need. Even if most of them can be switched off, it's quite expensive compared with the other offering. The other offering that is related to PBU and based on the power of the machines, sometimes it's quite expensive for the use case that we found. Other vendors, such as Primero, which sold specific license packages, such as by protocol, are most competitive than the licensing of IBM. I used to offer this solution when the customer had more than one use case. One business case, or some business case with a lot of budgets or a lot of revenue. Otherwise, I used to propose different solutions, such as Software AG, AppSystem, or Primero, that are good challengers because they are smaller solutions for smaller businesses and use cases.
The licensing is on a yearly basis.
This is the cheapest of the product's line of solutions. Their licensing model is based upon the size of the hardware that it's sitting on. Therefore, the more robust hardware, the bigger your license costs will be. Companies can try to get into negotiations with them. However, that's not simple. That's not a reflection on the product. That's a reflection of the relationship with the company.