CloverETL vs webMethods.io comparison

"Connectivity to various data sources: The ability to extract data from different data sources gives greater flexibility."

"No dependence on native language and ease of use.​​"

"Server features for scheduler: It is very easy to schedule jobs and monitor them. The interface is easy to use."

"Key features include wealth of pre-defined components; all components are customizable; descriptive logging, especially for error messages."

"The product is very stable."

"There were no complexities involved in the setup phase...The product is able to meet my company's API protection needs."

"With webMethods, the creation of servers and the utilization of Trading Networks facilitate B2B integration. It resolves any related issues effectively."

"Given that you have one integration API in place, it takes very minimal effort to scale it to any other application that might want to use the same. Its flow-based development environment is a breeze and makes it really easy to re-use most of the existing components and build up a new API."

"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."

"One valuable feature is that it is event-driven, so when new data is available on the source it can be quickly processed and displayed. Integration is definitely another useful feature, and B2B is one area where webMethods has its own unique thing going, whereby we can do monitoring of transactions, monitoring of client onboarding, and so on."

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

"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."

"Needs: easier automated failure recovery; more, and more intuitive auto-generated/filled-in code for components; easier/more automated sync between CloverETL Designer and CloverETL Server."

"Its documentation could be improved.​"

"​Resource management: We typically run out of heap space, and even the allocation of high heap space does not seem to be enough.​"

"In terms of scale, I would give it a four out of 10."

"We'd like for them to open up to a more cloud-based solution that could offer more flexibility and maybe a better rules engine or more integration with rules engines."

"As webMethods Integration Server is expensive, that's its area for improvement."

"Need to see more API portal features like monetizing APIs and private cloud readiness."

"Understanding the overall architecture is difficult."

"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."

"I would like the solution to provide bi-weekly updates."

"It is difficult to maintain."

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

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

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

"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."

"This is an expensive product and we may replace it with something more reasonably priced."

"The pricing and licensing costs for webMethods are very high, which is the only reason that we might switch to another product."

"Always plan five years ahead and don’t jeopardize the quality of your project by dropping items from the bill of materials."

"Pricing has to be negotiated with the local Software AG representative. SAG can always prepare an appropriate pricing model for every client."