We performed a comparison between BIC Platform and webMethods Integration Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Camunda, Sparx Systems and others in Business Process Design."The product is easy to use."
"This is low-cost and very user friendly. A variety of models are available depending on the needs of the customer."
"While this is a new product it has a mature feel from being built by a company with many years in the business."
"The central dictionary is a valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is the built-in monitoring, auditing, RETS, and SOAP services."
"It frankly fills the gap between IT and business by having approval and policy enforcement on each state and cycle of the asset from the moment it gets created until it is retired."
"Some of the key features are the integration platform, query mechanism, message handling within the bus, and the rules engine. We've had a really good experience with webMethods Integration Server."
"What I like best about webMethods Integration Server is its portfolio of connectors."
"The product is very stable."
"A product with good API and EDI components."
"It has a good integration server, designer, and a very good API portal."
"From a user perspective, the feature which I like the most about Integration Server is its designer."
"The solution could improve its connectivity to other systems."
"As the product is very new, some minor features are still missing, but everything is there to handle day-to-day process modeling."
"The product needs improvement regarding the confidentiality of the domain information for the key administrator."
"There's an issue with the current manual that they're working on."
"There should be better logging, or a better dashboard, to allow you to see see the logs of the services."
"We need more dashboards and reporting engines that can provide detailed information for management. In short, we need better analytics."
"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."
"The product must add more compatible connectors."
"The orchestration is not as good as it should be."
"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."
"This solution could be improved by offering subscription based licensing."
"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."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
BIC Platform is ranked 18th in Business Process Design with 4 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. BIC Platform is rated 8.2, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of BIC Platform writes "Provides good stability, but they should add a feature for enterprise architecture". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". BIC Platform is most compared with SAP Signavio Process Manager, ARIS BPA, Visio, Camunda and ADONIS, 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 Design 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.