We performed a comparison between SAP Signavio Process Manager and webMethods Integration Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Design solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature for me is the collaboration point of view, where everybody has a single view, or source of truth, and everybody sees the same thing. Everyone can comment, contribute, and discuss the processes itself, which makes it easier to funnel down the most value adding comments and make the relevant changes to the processes. This leads to the next best iteration or version of your process."
"We can use workflow manager to create forms."
"The interface is very intuitive and includes a drag-and-drop function."
"It is a very scalable solution."
"This solution is innovative and simple to use."
"There are many valuable features, of course. I would say the main value of Signavio is to have your current process map in a way that is easy to read and derive optimization actions to make it leaner, faster, more user friendly, etc. Another great feature is the visualization, which is easy to see and read. How they map the process is also very user friendly, with drag-and-drop functionality. Also, it's a very self-explanatory, user-friendly solution."
"Process Manager is really helpful in building process maps. Creating them is really easy; the program is user-friendly."
"The visual representation is extremely powerful and easy to use in process modeling and analysis. I can show it to someone who doesn't know business process mapping, and they still understand because it's visually presented. It becomes easy to explain variants and what needs to change."
"I would say the core Web-based integrations work the best. They are the most efficient and robust implementations one can do with webMethods."
"The product supports various types of digital documents, including XMLs and EDI."
"What I like best about webMethods Integration Server is its portfolio of connectors."
"The Software AG Designer has been great. It's very intuitive."
"The tool supports gRPC."
"The MFT component of webMethods, for example, is easy to set up and convenient to use. It handles files very efficiently and it is easy to automate tasks with complex schedules. Monitoring is centralized to MWS which can be used to monitor other products as well (Trading Networks, BPM, MFT, etc.)"
"The product is very stable."
"It's obvious that the heart of the product lies here. It's comprised of all aspects of ESB (Enterprise Gateway, Adapter, TN, Java) and BPM (task, rules engine)."
"There is room for improvement in the reporting function. At the moment, for example, while it is possible to report on how many users you had in the last month, you can't use it to tell you how many users you had from the first week to the second week. This is really a drawback because when you have an activity to promote Signavio or BPI, it would be good to be able to measure how many people you had in the system."
"The tool's navigation could be improved."
"The user management functionality in Process Manager is not as user friendly as the one in the Collaboration Hub."
"One of the most important points in Signavio that would be a great change would be the management of variants of the process."
"If you're going to use the tool the way I'm using it, which is to work with businesses and capture what they're thinking, it would be helpful to be able to insert other objects onto a diagram."
"Signavio Process Manager needs to have an integrated document management system to better work with processes that rely heavily on documents and document flows."
"We would like a better way to give users the correct permissions for processes, whether to view or design."
"There is room for improvement in analytics. People don't realize it, but the world has changed in the last six to eight months. Customers want to see AI like ChatGPT and ML capabilities in all aspects of business processes and reporting."
"It could be more user-friendly."
"wM SAP Adapter User Guide - Example, like Message Broker setup was unclear, leading to issues during Testing and we had refer the internet forums to understand that there is a Message Broker Cleanup utility and that needs to be setup as well."
"In terms of scale, I would give it a four out of 10."
"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."
"There should be better logging, or a better dashboard, to allow you to see see the logs of the services."
"webMethods Integration Server needs to add more adapters."
"The interface needs some work. It is not very user-friendly."
"Other products have been using AI and cloud enhancements, but webMethods Integration Server is still lagging in that key area."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
SAP Signavio Process Manager is ranked 6th in Business Process Design with 58 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. SAP Signavio Process Manager is rated 8.2, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of SAP Signavio Process Manager writes "Has many functionalities and is used to model processes to the former operating model". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". SAP Signavio Process Manager is most compared with Celonis, ARIS BPA, Camunda, Visio and ADONIS, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods.io Integration, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks and Boomi iPaaS. See our SAP Signavio Process Manager vs. webMethods Integration Server report.
We monitor all Business Process Design reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
