Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Fiorano ESB vs webMethods.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 3, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Fiorano ESB
Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
10th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
webMethods.io
Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
92
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (9th), API Management (9th), Cloud Data Integration (6th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) category, the mindshare of Fiorano ESB is 1.3%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 11.0%, up from 9.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer987933 - PeerSpot reviewer
Scalable and easy to maintain
One of the most valuable features is the scalability. Whenever it's required, we can add more servers and scale. We can actually use specific servers for specific stuff. Unlike in other solutions, now we can implement one server purely dedicated to core-banking-related API. This is very important when it comes to the PCI DSS certification.
MohanPrasad - PeerSpot reviewer
Smooth integration and enhanced deployment with high licensing cost
webMethods.io was used to integrate APIs through the webMethods.io platform, trigger database events, and connect backend APIs through a Java backend. It was used extensively for integration purposes in my organization Integration became smoother, troubleshooting was easier, and deployment and…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The ability to compliment out-of-the-box integration components with small custom code."
"The platform's most valuable feature is data transformation."
"One of the most valuable features is the scalability. Whenever it's required, we can add more servers and scale. We can actually use specific servers for specific stuff. Unlike in other solutions, now we can implement one server purely dedicated to core-banking-related API. This is very important when it comes to the PCI DSS certification."
"The stability is good."
"The development is very fast. If you know what you're doing, you can develop something very easily and very fast."
"This solution has given us a competitive advantage because we have better automation and insight."
"The solution is scalable."
"Most of the work in our organization can be more easily done using the tool."
"It's a good tool, and it has a stable messaging broker."
"webMethods Integration Server is an easy-to-use solution and does not require a lot of coding."
"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."
 

Cons

"Fiorano ESB could be improved by becoming more user-friendly. Most of the pages and generated reports on API usage are already there, but they could be more user-friendly. There could be more selections added to generate reports. Overall, though, Fiorano suits all our needs and has good functionality."
"Error logging is not very user-friendly. It requires the error logging to be configured in many different places."
"Fiorano ESB's logging feature and data availability need improvement."
"The interface needs some work. It is not very user-friendly."
"I have noticed that webMethods ActiveTransfer has had problems when handling large files. For example, when we receive (and perform operations on) files that are larger than about 16 MB, the software starts losing performance."
"It is an expensive solution and not very suitable for smaller businesses."
"I would like the solution to provide bi-weekly updates."
"The learning curve is a little steep at first."
"I'd like to see the admin portal for managing the integration server go up a level, to have more capabilities and to be given a more modern web interface."
"I would like to have a dashboard where I can see all of the communication between components and the configuration."
"The market webMethods Integration Server falls under is a very crowded market, so for the product to stand out, Software AG would need to get traction in the open source community by releasing a new version or a base version and open source it, so people can create new custom components and add it to the portfolio."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the product's pricing a five out of ten."
"The price is a little bit high, especially regarding their support."
"The price is high and I give it a five out of ten."
"This is not a cheap solution but, compared to other products such as those offered by IBM, the pricing is similar."
"I do see a lack of capabilities inside of the monetization area for them. They have a cloud infrastructure that is pay per use type of a thing. If you already use 1,000 transactions per se, then you can be charged and billed. I see room for improvement there for their side on that particular capability of the monetization."
"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."
"I am not involved in the licensing side of things."
"The pricing and licensing costs for webMethods are very high, which is the only reason that we might switch to another product."
"I signed a three-year deal with them. It is a yearly locked-in price for the next three years."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions are best for your needs.
858,435 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Fiorano ESB?
The platform's most valuable feature is data transformation.
What needs improvement with Fiorano ESB?
Fiorano ESB's logging feature and data availability need improvement.
What do you like most about Built.io Flow?
The tool helps us to streamline data integration. Its BPM is very strong and powerful. The solution helps us manage digital transformation.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io is expensive. We have multiple components, and you need to pay for each of them.
What needs improvement with Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io needs to incorporate ChatGPT to enhance user experience. It can offer a customized user experience.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Polaris Transport, Harris Exelis, Aboitiz Power, Dyckerhoff AG, Gamma-Dynacare, DHL, Bajaj Finserv, Ecole hételire de Lausanne, Northern California Power Agency, Federal Bank, Commercial Bank of Africa, EasyPay, SSP, General American Corporation, Forex, Beijing Shubei Software Technology, City of Canton, Kent County Council, SJS District, County of Tulare, US Coast Guard, ZUNYI, Fraikin, Nilkamal, Posco, Toyota, UB Group
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about Fiorano ESB vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
858,435 professionals have used our research since 2012.