Dataloader.io vs webMethods.io comparison

"he product’s most valuable feature is ease of access."

"DataLoader is cost-effective since it is free."

"I find DataLoader's ability to easily integrate with external keys valuable, which is a bit more challenging with DBM."

"webMethods Trading Networks is a stable solution."

"We needed a tool that was able to orchestrate and help us configure our APIs so that we could maintain and see the heartbeat, traffic, trends, etc."

"All of the components are very independent but are tied together to give the business value."

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

"The solution's ease-of-use is its most valuable feature, in which complex issues may be resolved."

"The performance is good."

"The MFT component of webMethods, for example, is easy to set up and convenient to use. It handles files very efficiently and it is easy to automate tasks with complex schedules. Monitoring is centralized to MWS which can be used to monitor other products as well (Trading Networks, BPM, MFT, etc.)"

"In the API gateway, there is a new feature that allows us to filter logs within a payload. This has been a useful feature."

"DataLoader has limitations, including constraints with file sizes and transactions."

"We need help with large data migrations. It only works well for a few thousand records or less than a million records."

"Dataloader has limitations, including constraints with file sizes and transactions. Additionally, at times it can be slow, and when integrating DBM, we find it more complex than Dataloader."

"It is difficult to maintain."

"There are things that could be improved with the webMethods API gateway. One thing is that it's too attached to the integration service and we'd like it to be a little bit more independent. We would like for them to separate operations so that it doesn't rely on the bulky integration server and so that it can be used everywhere."

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

"The price has room for improvement."

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

"Understanding the overall architecture is difficult."

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

"The high price of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."

"The product is inexpensive and economical."

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

"Sometimes we don't have a very clear idea what the licensing will entail at first, because it can be very customizable. On one hand, this can be a good thing, because it can be tailored to a specific customer's needs. But on the other hand it can also be an issue when some customer asks, "What's the cost?" and we can't yet give them an accurate answer."

"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."

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

"Some who consider this solution often avoid it due to its high price."

"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."

"There are no hidden costs in addition to the standard licensing fees for webMethods. For corporate organizations, it's a very cheap or fairly priced product, but for growing or small businesses, it's quite expensive. These businesses would probably need to consider an enterprise services bus at some point. Thus, from a pricing point, it closes out non-cooperate businesses."

"The pricing is a yearly license."