FME vs webMethods.io comparison

"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."

"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."

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

"FME's features that I have found most valuable are that it has a very friendly user interface, you don't need to use a lot of code, it has a lot of connectors and few forms, and it has a strong facial aspect that can do a lot of facial analysis."

"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."

"The most valuable feature of FME is the graphical user interface."

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

"The Software AG Designer has been great; it's very intuitive."

"This solution has given us a competitive advantage because we have better automation and insight."

"Most of the work can be more easily done by using webMethods compared to other tools."

"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."

"ActiveTransfer lets us maintain the file in the staging area before we transfer it. After that, we can remove the file to make sure that the reconciliation process is done. Sometimes we will zip and unzip the files, but if we have a GKB file, we often ignore it."

"It has a good integration server, designer, and a very good API portal."

"The performance is good."

"The tool supports gRPC."

"FME is a great tool, but I don't know if we can scale it up since the prices are high and we would need to convince the decision makers to provide more budget."

"Improvements could be made to mapping presentations."

"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."

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

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

"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."

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

"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."

"In terms of improvement, it would be better if it adapted quicker to open standards. It took a while for API specification before the last version was available. The spec of version two was rather quick."

"One area that needs improvement is the version upgrade process. Many customers I've worked with encounter challenges when transitioning from their current version, such as x or 9, to a newer version. The process is not smooth, and they must shift their entire website."

"Upgrades are complex. They typically take about five months from start to finish."

"The product needs to be improved in a few ways. First, they need to stabilize the components of the whole platform across versions. Also, they should stop replacing old components with brand new ones and, rather, improve by evolution."

"The support is good but they could improve by being faster and more knowledgeable."

"In terms of improvement, it would be better if it adapted quicker to open standards."

"The learning curve is a little steep at first."

"The price has room for improvement."

"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."

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

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

"It is a cost-effective solution."

"I don’t have much idea about prices, but webMethods API Portal is not something cheaper."

"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."

"The product is expensive."

"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."

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