Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Apollo GraphOS vs webMethods.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Apollo GraphOS
Ranking in API Management
31st
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
4.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
webMethods.io
Ranking in API Management
10th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
94
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (2nd), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (9th), Cloud Data Integration (8th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the API Management category, the mindshare of Apollo GraphOS is 0.6%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 2.5%, up from 2.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
API Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
webMethods.io2.5%
Apollo GraphOS0.6%
Other96.9%
API Management
 

Featured Reviews

Sagor Rana - PeerSpot reviewer
Front End Engineer at Upwork
Efficiently filters API data though experiences slower performance with larger projects
I would like to see better performance in larger projects. When dealing with large amounts of data, it can become slow, causing users to potentially abandon the application. Improving performance and ensuring the app runs smoothly would enhance user experience. Stability issues, where it sometimes breaks down, need to be addressed as well.
YM
Developer at a hospitality company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Offers strong integration capabilities and reliable features but needs pricing and scaling improvements
Many things are evolving with the AI buzz in the market. What I would like to see improved or enhanced in webMethods.io in the future is that since webMethods.io is already under IBM, I think IBM will introduce and integrate AI into it. Additionally, regarding what webMethods.io can improve is the license cost. Other cloud players are also providing the same kind of functionality, such as AWS and Azure. webMethods.io is being installed on-premises, but AWS is providing it directly in the cloud. When comparing the license cost and request per minute cost, webMethods.io needs to address that. There are many competitors in the market for this.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable features of Apollo GraphOS OS for me are its security and authentication processes."
"Apollo GraphOS has significantly enhanced both the developer experience and product delivery timelines by offering a centralized approach to managing GraphQL schemas and services, helping reduce overhead and improve collaboration between frontend and backend teams."
"The most valuable features of Apollo GraphOS OS for me are its security and authentication processes."
"Clients choose webMethods.io API for its intuitive interface, promoting seamless interaction and quick communication between systems."
"The performance is good."
"The cloud version of the solution is very easy to set up."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"The solution's ease-of-use is its most valuable feature, in which complex issues may be resolved."
"Best feature is Insight for monitoring, and as a debugging tool. It has saved us a lot of time during crisis situations."
"Segregation of deployment for the environments is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"Ease of implementation and flexibility to hold the business logic are the most valuable features."
 

Cons

"There’s room for improvement in schema collaboration tools, especially in large teams where multiple developers are working on overlapping parts of the API."
"Apollo GraphOS OS is using a detailed project, and it can be time-consuming because it has a lot of data to manage."
"Apollo GraphOS OS is using a detailed project, and it can be time-consuming because it has a lot of data to manage. It sometimes takes longer than three seconds, which can affect loading times and lead to user dissatisfaction. I would like to see improved performance."
"The price should be reduced to make it more affordable."
"They should develop clear visibility for the onboarding."
"We got the product via a reseller, and the support from the reseller has been less than desirable."
"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 solution's release management feature could be better."
"The Software AG Designer could be more memory-efficient or CPU-efficient so that we can use it with middle-spec hardware."
"The product's stability is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The product needs to be improved in a few ways. First, they need to stabilize the components of the whole platform across versions. Also, they should stop replacing old components with brand new ones and, rather, improve by evolution."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The price of webMethods Integration Server isn't that high from an enterprise context, but open-source ESB solutions will always be the cheapest."
"It's a good deal for the money that we pay."
"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."
"Most of my clients would like the price of the solution to be reduced."
"The product is very expensive."
"This is an expensive product and we may replace it with something more reasonably priced."
"The solution’s pricing is too high."
"The pricing and licensing costs for webMethods are very high, which is the only reason that we might switch to another product."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Management solutions are best for your needs.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
10%
Energy/Utilities Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise64
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Apollo GraphOS?
I am not sensitive to nor very knowledgeable about the pricing and setup cost.
What needs improvement with Apollo GraphOS?
So far, I could say that Apollo GraphOS is quite comprehensive, there’s room for improvement in schema collaboration tools, especially in large teams where multiple developers are working on overla...
What is your primary use case for Apollo GraphOS?
I’ve been using Apollo GraphOS across several mobile and web projects. On the mobile side, I’ve integrated it with React Native and Flutter. For web applications, the usage has been primarily withi...
What do you like most about Built.io Flow?
The tool helps us to streamline data integration. Its BPM is very strong and powerful. The solution helps us manage digital transformation.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io is expensive. We have multiple components, and you need to pay for each of them.
What needs improvement with Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io needs to incorporate ChatGPT to enhance user experience. It can offer a customized user experience.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about Apollo GraphOS vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.