We performed a comparison between AuraQuantic and webMethods Integration Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Apache, Pega and others in Business Process Management (BPM)."AuraPortal has the best price for its process."
"It's a low-code application."
"AuraQuantic's most valuable features are the zero code, user-friendly mode, and integration."
"AuraPortal is very user-friendly and flexible."
"Given that you have one integration API in place, it takes very minimal effort to scale it to any other application that might want to use the same. Its flow-based development environment is a breeze and makes it really easy to re-use most of the existing components and build up a new API."
"webMethods Integration Server is an easy-to-use solution and does not require a lot of coding."
"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)."
"From a user perspective, the feature which I like the most about Integration Server is its designer."
"It's a visual tool, so our transformations can be quickly implemented without a lot of fuss. The fact that we have an easy way to expose REST services is also very interesting. It offers the possibility to connect over GMS to synchronize message brokers."
"It’s fairly easy to view, move, and mange access across different components. Different component types are categorized and can be viewed in a web based administration console."
"We have a reusable code that we can replicate for any new interfaces."
"Best feature is Insight for monitoring, and as a debugging tool. It has saved us a lot of time during crisis situations."
"One thing that could be improved would be for it to be deployed in a shorter time."
"More documentation and the ability to extract different reports about different relations in the objects I use will help."
"We'd like it more animated. It would be useful if we could integrate GIFs, for example."
"AuraQuantic's price could be improved."
"It is quite expensive."
"For code version control, you need to use some external software."
"It would be nice if they had a change management system offering. We built our own deployer application because the one built into webMethods couldn't enforce change management rules. Integration into a change management system, along with the version control system, would be a good offering; it's something that they're lacking."
"There should be better logging, or a better dashboard, to allow you to see see the logs of the services."
"The initial setup of the webMethods Integration Server is not easy but it gets easier once you know it. It is tiresome but not difficult."
"Upgrades are complex. They typically take about five months from start to finish. There are many packages that plug into webMethods Integration Server, which is the central point for a vast majority of the transactions at my organization. Anytime we are upgrading that, there are complexities within each component that we must understand. That makes any upgrade very cumbersome and complicated. That has been my experience at this company. Because there are many different business units that we are touching, there are so many different components that we are touching. The amount of READMEs that you have to go through takes some time."
"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."
"This product has too many gaps. You find them after update installations. This should be covered by automatic testing."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
AuraQuantic is ranked 19th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 6 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. AuraQuantic is rated 8.8, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of AuraQuantic writes "Responsive support, easy to use, and reliable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". AuraQuantic is most compared with Appian, Camunda and Bizagi, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods.io Integration, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks and Boomi AtomSphere Integration.
We monitor all Business Process Management (BPM) 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.
