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

Azure Data Factory 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:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
7.1
Azure Data Factory offers significant time, effort, and infrastructure savings, enhancing data analysis and decision-making capabilities.
Sentiment score
7.1
webMethods.io delivers rapid ROI through cost savings, reduced downtime, and increased productivity, depending on specific implementations.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.5
Azure Data Factory support is praised for responsiveness, though some report delays; satisfaction varies with Microsoft partnerships.
Sentiment score
6.6
webMethods.io's customer service is praised for responsiveness, but users note occasional delays and desire improved technical support communication.
The technical support is responsive and helpful
The technical support from Microsoft is rated an eight out of ten.
The technical support for Azure Data Factory is generally acceptable.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.5
Azure Data Factory scales efficiently, managing large datasets for enterprises, though users note cost and integration limitations.
Sentiment score
7.2
webMethods.io is praised for its scalability in cloud and on-premises environments, with some licensing constraints noted.
Azure Data Factory is highly scalable.
Vertically, scalability is fine, however, I have not expanded horizontally with the product yet.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.8
Azure Data Factory is highly rated for stability, scalability, and performance, despite occasional minor issues with larger data volumes.
Sentiment score
7.6
webMethods.io is generally stable and reliable, with minor issues in specific modules and cloud version maturity needed.
The solution has a high level of stability, roughly a nine out of ten.
There are some issues like the tool hanging or the need for additional jars when exposing web services.
 

Room For Improvement

Azure Data Factory requires improvements in integration, pricing, documentation, UI, monitoring, processing, and debugging for enhanced user experience.
webMethods.io needs clearer documentation, better scalability, intuitive interfaces, and improved integration and cost-effectiveness for enhanced user experience.
There is a problem with the integration with third-party solutions, particularly with SAP.
Sometimes, the compute fails to process data if there is a heavy load suddenly, and it doesn't scale up automatically.
Incorporating more dedicated API sources to specific services like HubSpot CRM or Salesforce would be beneficial.
A special discount of at least 50% for old customers would allow us to expand our services and request more resources.
 

Setup Cost

Azure Data Factory offers competitive, flexible pay-as-you-go pricing; costs vary by data volume and use of additional services.
Enterprise buyers find webMethods.io costly but valuable, offering flexibility and comprehensive solutions, particularly beneficial for large-scale enterprises.
The pricing is cost-effective.
It is considered cost-effective.
 

Valuable Features

Azure Data Factory enables easy data integration, management, and transformation with over 100 connectors, supporting ETL and automation efficiently.
webMethods.io excels in seamless integration, user-friendliness, robust security, and scalability, offering efficient tools and reliable management for diverse needs.
It connects to different sources out-of-the-box, making integration much easier.
I find the most valuable feature in Azure Data Factory to be its ability to handle large datasets.
The interface of Azure Data Factory is very usable with a more interactive visual experience, making it easier for people who are not as experienced in coding to work with.
It facilitates the exposure of around 235 services through our platform to feed various government entities across the entire country.
 

Categories and Ranking

Azure Data Factory
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
90
Ranking in other categories
Data Integration (1st), Cloud Data Warehouse (3rd)
webMethods.io
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
92
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (3rd), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (10th), API Management (10th), Cloud Data Integration (7th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)
 

Featured Reviews

Joy Maitra - PeerSpot reviewer
Facilitates seamless data pipeline creation with good analytics and and thorough monitoring
Azure Data Factory is a low code, no code platform, which is helpful. It provides many prebuilt functionalities that assist in building data pipelines. Also, it facilitates easy transformation with all required functionalities for analytics. Furthermore, it connects to different sources out-of-the-box, making integration much easier. The monitoring is very thorough, though a more readable version would be appreciable.
Michele Illiano - PeerSpot reviewer
Can function as an ESB along with the core product, with decent integration of message protocols
I have noticed that webMethods ActiveTransfer has had problems when handling large files. For example, when we receive (and perform operations on) files that are larger than about 16 MB, the software starts losing performance. This is why, for most customers who have to deal with big files, I suggest that they use a product other than ActiveTransfer. I would like to note that this problem mainly concerns large files that undergo extra operations, such assigning, unassigning, or file translation. When these operations take place on large files, ActiveTransfer will use up a lot of resources. Within the product itself, I also believe that there is room for improvement in terms of optimization when it comes to general performance. I suspect that the issues underlying poor optimization are because it is all developed in Java. That is, all the objects and functions that are used need to be better organized, especially when it comes to big files but also overall. webMethods ActiveTransfer was born as an ESB to handle messages, and these messages were typically very short, i.e. small in size. A message is data that you have to send to an application, where it must be received in real-time and possibly processed or acknowledged elsewhere in the system as well. So, because it was initially designed for small messages, it struggles with performance when presented with very large files. All this to say, I suggest that they have an engineer reevaluate the architecture of the product in order to consider cases where large files are sent, and not only small ones. As for new features, compared to other products in the market, I think Software AG should be more up to date when it comes to extra protocol support, especially those protocols that other solutions have included in their products by default. Whenever we need to add an unsupported protocol, we have to go through the effort of custom development in order to work with it. Also, all the banks are obligated to migrate to the new standards, and big companies are all handling translations and operating their libraries with the new protocol formats. But webMethods ActiveTransfer doesn't seem to be keeping up with this evolution. Thus, they should aim to be more compliant in future, along the lines of their competitors such as IBM and Primeur.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Healthcare Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

How do you select the right cloud ETL tool?
AWS Glue and Azure Data factory for ELT best performance cloud services.
How does Azure Data Factory compare with Informatica PowerCenter?
Azure Data Factory is flexible, modular, and works well. In terms of cost, it is not too pricey. It offers the stability and reliability I am looking for, good scalability, and is easy to set up an...
How does Azure Data Factory compare with Informatica Cloud Data Integration?
Azure Data Factory is a solid product offering many transformation functions; It has pre-load and post-load transformations, allowing users to apply transformations either in code by using Power Q...
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

1. Adobe 2. BMW 3. Coca-Cola 4. General Electric 5. Johnson & Johnson 6. LinkedIn 7. Mastercard 8. Nestle 9. Pfizer 10. Samsung 11. Siemens 12. Toyota 13. Unilever 14. Verizon 15. Walmart 16. Accenture 17. American Express 18. AT&T 19. Bank of America 20. Cisco 21. Deloitte 22. ExxonMobil 23. Ford 24. General Motors 25. IBM 26. JPMorgan Chase 27. Microsoft (Azure Data Factory is developed by Microsoft) 28. Oracle 29. Procter & Gamble 30. Salesforce 31. Shell 32. Visa
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), Informatica, Salesforce and others in Cloud Data Integration. Updated: March 2025.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.