CentraSite vs webMethods.io comparison

"The governance is powerful, and you can look up services very easily, which may reduce some development cycle time."

"The messaging part is the most valuable feature."

"webMethods API Portal is overall very valuable. It is now a comprehensive API catalogue that serves various purposes, including API assessment and evaluation."

"It integrates well with various servers."

"Clients choose webMethods.io API for its intuitive interface, promoting seamless interaction and quick communication between systems."

"The Software AG Designer has been great. It's very intuitive."

"The core product can be used not only for automatic file transfers between applications, but also as an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)."

"The product is powerful, straightforward, and easy to use."

"They are the building blocks of EAI in SAG products, and they offer a very good platform."

"The setup is mild. It's not so simple and not very difficult. You can make it happen with some configuration, but it's not easy for non-professional people."

"The products, at the moment, are new and there should perhaps be support for the older version of the protocols."

"Perhaps in the area of Microservices, where I think Trading Networks could benefit from some improvements."

"The improvement needed is related to the model's position. As of now, it seems to be more of a conceptual idea rather than a widely implemented solution. For how long"

"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."

"In terms of improvements, maybe on the API monetization side, having users able to create separate consumption plans and throttle all those consumption plans towards the run time could be better."

"The configuring of the JWT token would be improved as it is a confusing process. We require more information on this part of the solution."

"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 certifications and learning resources are not exposed openly enough. For instance, they have a trial version which comes with only a few basic features, and I think that community-wise they need to offer more free or open spaces where developers can feel encouraged to experiment."

"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."

"The vendor is flexible with respect to pricing."

"Most of my clients would like the price of the solution to be reduced."

"webMethods.io is expensive. We have multiple components, and you need to pay for each of them."

"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."

"It is a cost-effective solution."

"The pricing is a yearly license."

"Some of the licensing is "component-ized," which is confusing to new users/customers."