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

Axway AMPLIFY API Management vs webMethods.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 2024

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

Axway AMPLIFY API Management
Ranking in API Management
32nd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
webMethods.io
Ranking in API Management
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
93
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 September 2025, in the API Management category, the mindshare of Axway AMPLIFY API Management is 1.6%, up from 1.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 2.6%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
API Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
webMethods.io2.6%
Axway AMPLIFY API Management1.6%
Other95.8%
API Management
 

Featured Reviews

Sudhanshu Singh - PeerSpot reviewer
We get stability, scalability, and security
Axway provides good documentation that newcomers can easily follow, but I believe the initial setup would be tough for someone new. Experienced employees know where everything is and how to do their job, so it would be difficult for a new hire to get up to speed. For an experienced person, I give the initial setup a ten out of ten. Deployment can be considered a hundred lines of code and some a thousand lines. For a simple deployment, it takes 10-15 seconds. And if the environment connectivity is good enough to respond and there is some heavy code that is being deployed, it takes around 30-60 seconds max, if we are referring to the cloud, where the connectivity for the long duration of the calls is there. The total deployment time is one minute to finish up. From the industrial point of view, Europe has a major chunk of users followed by, the US, and then Australia or the Asia-Pacific region.
MohanPrasad - PeerSpot reviewer
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…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We like the portal for documentation a lot."
"The API portal capability is a valuable feature."
"I don't believe the Salesforce has been fully utilized yet. It gives us quick engagement."
"This product is a ten when it comes to API management."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is security."
"This platform can be highly scalable."
"There's drag and drop functionality so that you do not need to have a senior expert developer to make use of the tool. You can get more of your staff trained up to be able to use it as it's not overly technical."
"The administration tool for this solution is good."
"From a user perspective, the feature which I like the most about Integration Server is its designer."
"It's easy to construct new interfaces like apps and client portals."
"The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is the built-in monitoring, auditing, RETS, and SOAP services."
"The most valuable feature of webMethods Integration Server is all the capabilities it provides. We leverage most of the features, that they have offered to us. Our vendor has made some additional features on top of the webMethods Integration Server and we use all the features together."
"It integrates well with various servers."
"The cloud version of the solution is very easy to set up."
"The product is powerful, straightforward, and easy to use."
"The orchestration aspects of APIs, the integration capabilities, and the logging functionalities were the most critical features of our workflow."
 

Cons

"The API Mocking tools need to be improved."
"Areas of improvement include marketing and enhancing the data products area by using ETIs."
"It would be great if they have an asset report. It's hard to get support for that."
"Sometimes we find bugs where certain calls are not returning all the data we need."
"In terms of customer service, the company needs to be easier to contact, and the support team needs to understand the situation and the product itself better."
"The installation process is a bit complex and it could be a lot simpler."
"This solution does have some limitations regarding the deployment model."
"The portal still has room for improvement."
"It is an expensive solution and not very suitable for smaller businesses."
"This product has too many gaps. You find them after update installations. This should be covered by automatic testing."
"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."
"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."
"I would like to have a dashboard where I can see all of the communication between components and the configuration."
"When migration happens from the one release to an upgraded release from Software AG, many of the existing services are deprecated and developers have to put in effort testing and redeveloping some of the services. It would be better that upgrade releases took care to support the lower-level versions of webMethods."
"This product is for larger companies. Compared to TIBCO I think webMethods is better in terms of ease of use and support."
"Scalability and connectors to different cloud applications is lacking."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is expensive. When you acquire a license you have full access to the solution, unlike other competitors such as Apigee X, where there are fragmented licenses. Some licenses only allow access to certain features while others allow access to more features. Upon procuring this solution's license, you will have full access to the solution, allowing you to experiment with all of its features."
"Pricing has to be negotiated with the local Software AG representative. SAG can always prepare an appropriate pricing model for every client."
"The solution's development license is free for three to six months. We have to pay for other things."
"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."
"It is expensive, but we reached a good agreement with the company. It is still a little bit expensive, but we got a better deal than the previous one."
"I don’t have much idea about prices, but webMethods API Portal is not something cheaper."
"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."
"The product is expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Management solutions are best for your needs.
867,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
16%
Government
9%
Insurance Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise7
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise63
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Axway AMPLIFY API Management?
The solution has a yearly subscription. The solution’s pricing is competitive. Axway makes a significant impression compared to its peers, especially with a sensitive budget. In many instances, it ...
What is your primary use case for Axway AMPLIFY API Management?
We use the solution for ESB and B2B integration between the systems of our business.
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

Vordel Application Gateway, Axway API Management Plus, Axway API Management, AMPLIFY API Management
Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Engie Group, Allianz
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about Axway AMPLIFY API Management vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
867,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.