FME vs webMethods.io comparison

"All spatial features are unrivaled, and the possibility to execute them based on a scheduled trigger, manual, e-mail, Websocket, tweet, file/directory change or virtually any trigger is most valuable."

"From my reseller perspective, the best features in FME are the ease of operation and the fact that it works."

"FME is spatially aware and understands how to deal with the conversion of spatial objects and their attributes."

"We make minor subtle changes to the workbenches to improve it. We can share the workbenches. We don't have to use GitHub or anything else."

"It has a very friendly user interface. You don't need to use a lot of code. For us that's the most important aspect about it. Also, it has a lot of connectors and few forms. It has a strong facial aspect. It can do a lot of facial analysis."

"It has standard plug-ins available for different data sources."

"The most valuable feature of FME is the graphical user interface. There is nothing better. It is very easy to debug because you can see all steps where there are failures. Overall the software is easy to optimize a process."

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

"The most valuable feature is stability."

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

"The solution is scalable."

"webMethods Integration Server is an easy-to-use solution and does not require a lot of coding."

"A product with good API and EDI components."

"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."

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

"We are looking at the possibility of using Glue instead of FME, using the native AWS product."

"FME can improve the geographical transformation. I've had some problems with the geographical transformations, but it's probably mostly because I'm not the most skilled geographer in-house. The solution requires some in-depth knowledge to perform some functions."

"The one thing that always appears in the community is the ability to make really easy loops to loop through data efficiently. That needs to be added at some point."

"FME's price needs improvement for the African market."

"To get a higher rating, it would have to improve the price and the associated scalability. These are the main issues."

"Improvements could be made to mapping presentations."

"Scalability and connectors to different cloud applications is lacking."

"It is quite expensive."

"The installation process should be simplified for first time users and be made more user-friendly."

"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."

"Business monitoring (BAM) needs improvement because the analytics and prediction module very often has performance problems."

"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 licensing cost is high compared to other options."

"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."

"FME Server used to cost £10,000; now it can cost over £100,000."

"The product's price is reasonable."

"We used the standard licensing for our use of FME. The cost was approximately €15,000 annually. We always welcome less expensive solutions, if the solution could be less expensive it would be helpful."

"The solution’s pricing is too high."

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

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

"The vendor is flexible with respect to pricing."

"It is worth the cost."

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

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

"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."