Aurea CX Messenger vs webMethods.io comparison

Aurea and IBM are both solutions in the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) category. Aurea is ranked #14, while IBM is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.1. Aurea holds a 0.7% mindshare in E, compared to IBM’s 10.9% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Aurea users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 94% of IBM users who would recommend it.

Aurea CX Messenger

Read 7 Aurea CX Messenger reviews

737 Views
192 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

webMethods.io

Read 93 webMethods.io reviews

9,897 Views
1,781 Comparison Views

94% willing to recommend

Aurea CX Messenger

webMethods.io

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 3, 2025

Aurea CX Messenger and webMethods.io are prominent competitors in the integration platform field. While Aurea CX Messenger excels in pricing and support services, webMethods.io is seen as superior due to its robust features, making it a preferred choice despite higher costs.

Features: Aurea CX Messenger is recognized for its reliable message queuing, robust security, and scalability. It uses well-known technologies like XSLT and JavaScript to simplify development. webMethods.io offers broad integration options, agility in hybrid and cloud environments, and comprehensive connectors, making it versatile and powerful for various integration needs.

Room for Improvement: Aurea CX Messenger could enhance its versatility to match webMethods.io's broad integration capabilities and update its cloud-native deployment flexibility. Further developing its hybrid environment agility might help it compete better. On the other hand, webMethods.io could benefit from improvements in pricing structure to offer more cost-effective solutions for users and enhancing some specialized modules to match their core integration reliability.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Aurea CX Messenger provides straightforward on-premise deployment with strong support services, ensuring quick issue resolution. webMethods.io emphasizes a smooth and flexible cloud-native deployment with support for multiple environments, offering comprehensive onboarding for enhanced ease and adaptability.

Pricing and ROI: Aurea CX Messenger is appreciated for its cost-efficiency, promising a high ROI through affordability and lower ongoing costs. webMethods.io, though more expensive upfront, offers significant ROI by enhancing business integrations over time. Its long-term value and transformative capabilities often justify the initial investment.

To learn more, read our detailed Aurea CX Messenger vs. webMethods.io Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Aurea CX Messenger vs. webMethods.io

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 862,514 peers since 2012

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

Aurea CX Messenger

Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)

14th

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Business Activity Monitoring (6th), Message Queue (MQ) Software (12th), SOA Governance (4th), Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) (9th)

webMethods.io

Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)

3rd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Business-to-Business Middleware (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (9th), API Management (9th), Cloud Data Integration (7th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) category, the mindshare of Aurea CX Messenger is 0.7%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 10.9%, up from 9.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)

Featured Reviews

Radhey Rajput

Sr. IT Analyst at NCR Corporation

Lightweight and efficient solution

It's very good and lightweight. But, it does not provide web service communication. But it is excellent for internal connections One valuable feature is the messaging broker. If there is a disruption, it restores the messages. And when the application is running, it delivers all the messages. The…

Read full review

MohanPrasad

Senior Consultant at Brillio

Smooth integration and enhanced deployment with high licensing cost

webMethods.io was used to integrate APIs through the webMethods.io platform, trigger database events, and connect backend APIs through a Java backend. It was used extensively for integration purposes in my organization Integration became smoother, troubleshooting was easier, and deployment and…

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"ESB: Provides all kind of possibilities to resolve business needs. A lot of ready to use services plus custom Java services. I used a lot of them all."

"The solution is highly scalable, this is very important for us. It can handle a lot of messages."

"The solution offers excellent stability."

"The Messenger Broker is a really good feature."

"The features that I have found most valuable are that it is very easy to develop. Most of it is graphical, but we also have the option to add any custom call that you need."

"SDM: User-friendly tool which allows for a seamless approach to performing hotfixes, if required."

"It is a bundled product stack for A2A and B2B usage. It is one of the best products which I have used during my integration career."

"We can arrange data caching and look at the solid state. Also, the API gateway is a very good component that can handle relevant cachings and integrations, as well as and also load permitting."

"webMethods platform is used to build an EAI platform, enabling communication between many internal systems and third-party operators."

"The tool is very powerful and user-friendly."

"We have a reusable code that we can replicate for any new interfaces."

"It's easy to construct new interfaces like apps and client portals."

"Within the new version, webMethods API Gateway gives us an end-to-end lifecycle from the creation of the API up into the development, deployment, and promotion into production/live. The current end-to-end lifecycle of the API gives us enough authority and governance of the API. We know what are currently live services, what is in the testing stage of development, and what version that has been commissioned. So, the full life cycle itself gives us full authority and governance of the API."

"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."

More webMethods.io pros

Cons

"You should not hurry with upgrades without testing the whole product completely."

"The improvement is that it should be on the cloud and use web services."

"I don't know if the last version has the cloud option, but maybe that could be good. That could be something that is included."

"It should include/add more services with the product as per market demand. It should include custom Java services developed by any organization or provide a platform where users/developers can share ideas/custom services, etc."

"The solution needs to improve support for new, more recent protocols on the API."

"Aurea CX Messenger could improve by making better use of the new APIs"

"One area that needs improvement is the version upgrade process. Many customers I've worked with encounter challenges when transitioning from their current version, such as x or 9, to a newer version. The process is not smooth, and they must shift their entire website."

"It is quite expensive."

"There should be better logging, or a better dashboard, to allow you to see see the logs of the services."

"Understanding the overall architecture is difficult."

"The UI for the admin console is very old. It hasn't been updated for years and is pretty much the same one that we started with. This is something that could be refreshed and made more modern."

"There are things that could be improved with the webMethods API gateway. One thing is that it's too attached to the integration service and we'd like it to be a little bit more independent. We would like for them to separate operations so that it doesn't rely on the bulky integration server and so that it can be used everywhere."

"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."

"The learning curve is a little steep at first."

More webMethods.io cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"You pay nothing for licensing, because the commercial model is a subscription. Other environments, such as QA and Development, are included in the subscription"

"The pricing is not so high."

"Much better than Oracle SOA Suite."

"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."

"The product is expensive."

"webMethods.io Integration's pricing is high and has yearly subscription costs."

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

"Currently, the licensing solution for this product is pretty straightforward. The way that Software AG has moved in their licensing agreements is very understandable. It is very easy for you to see where things land. Like most vendors today, they are transaction based. Therefore, just having a good understanding of how many transactions that you are doing a year would be very wise. Luckily, there are opportunities to work with the vendor to get a good understanding of how many transactions you have and what is the right limit for you to fall under."

"webMethods Trading Networks is a bit costly compared to others solutions."

"I signed a three-year deal with them. It is a yearly locked-in price for the next three years."

"Some who consider this solution often avoid it due to its high price."

More webMethods.io pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

862,514 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

19%

Computer Software Company

15%

Insurance Company

Media Company

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Retailer

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

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.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Built.io Flow?

webMethods.io needs to incorporate ChatGPT to enhance user experience. It can offer a customized user experience.

See all answers

Comparisons

TIBCO eFTL vs Aurea CX Messenger

Compared 38% of the time

ActiveMQ vs Aurea CX Messenger

Compared 32% of the time

IBM MQ vs Aurea CX Messenger

Compared 30% of the time

More Aurea CX Messenger Competitors

IBM App Connect vs webMethods.io

Compared 8% of the time

Apigee vs webMethods.io

Compared 7% of the time

IBM Integration Bus vs webMethods.io

Compared 7% of the time

IBM Sterling B2B Integration Services vs webMethods.io

Compared 5% of the time

Boomi iPaaS vs webMethods.io

Compared 4% of the time

More webMethods.io Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Business Activity Monitoring

July 2025

Download Aurea CX Messenger product report

Buyer's Guide

webMethods.io

June 2025

Download webMethods.io product report

Also Known As

CX Messenger Enterprise, Aurea Sonic ESB, Aurea Sonic, Aurea Sonic MQ

Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API

Overview

CX Messenger lets your technology keep pace with your business. Aurea’s industry leading Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) lets you adapt and change your infrastructure with plug-and-play speed and ease.

Aurea

webMethods.io Integration is a powerful integration platform as a service (iPaaS) that provides a combination of capabilities offered by ESBs, data integration systems, API management tools, and B2B gateways.

IBM

Sample Customers

Heathrow, HomeServe, Paypal, Freedom Mortgage

Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings

Buyer's Guide

Aurea CX Messenger vs. webMethods.io

July 2025

Free Report: Aurea CX Messenger vs. webMethods.io

Find out what your peers are saying about Aurea CX Messenger vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

862,514 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Aurea CX Messenger vs. webMethods.io report.

See our list of best Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) vendors and best Cloud Data Integration vendors.

We monitor all Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) 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.