CentraSite vs webMethods.io comparison

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

"It’s fairly easy to view, move, and mange access across different components. Different component types are categorized and can be viewed in a web based administration console."

"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."

"The comprehensiveness and depth of Integration Servers' connectors to packaged apps and custom apps is unlimited. They have a connector for everything. If they don't, you can build it yourself. Or oftentimes, if there is value for other customers as well, you can talk with webMethods about creating a new adapter for you."

"When it comes to the user interface, I'm already really used to it. I cannot say anything against it. For me, it's easy to use."

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

"webMethods.io is a comprehensive box that provides multiple functionalities; I appreciate it because we can integrate many applications and any kind of API we want to integrate."

"The development is very fast. If you know what you're doing, you can develop something very easily and very fast."

"The messaging part is the most valuable feature."

"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."

"Support is expensive."

"The patching of infrastructure is not very smooth and improved authentication should be added in the next feature."

"The logging capability has room for improvement. That way, we could keep a history of all the transactions. It would be helpful to be able to get to that without having to build a standalone solution to do so."

"Some things could be improved, especially how ActiveTransfer handles third-party file transfers. It would be nice to have a native file-watching mechanism for when you're scheduling jobs with a third-party scheduler. Currently, we are using an outside file watcher solution to check the files before the file transfer. It checks the location to see if the file is there. If the file is there, it will prepare it for transfer. If the file isn't available, it will send an email it can create a ticket send it now. We recommended adding this file watcher mechanism."

"Forced migration from MessageBroker to Universal Messaging requires large scale reimplementation for JMS."

"It is an expensive solution and not very suitable for smaller businesses."

"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."

"We got the product via a reseller, and the support from the reseller has been less than desirable."

"The price is high and I give it a five out of ten."

"The price of webMethods Integration Server isn't that high from an enterprise context, but open-source ESB solutions will always be the cheapest."

"webMethods Integration Server is expensive, and there's no fixed price on it because it has a point pricing model. You can negotiate, which makes it interesting."

"The price is a little bit high, especially regarding their support."

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

"I am not involved in the licensing side of things."

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

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