FME vs webMethods.io comparison

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

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

"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. 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."

"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."

"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."

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

"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 cloud version of the solution is very easy to set up."

"I feel comfortable using this product with its ease of building interfaces for developers. This is a better integration tool for integrating with various applications like Oracle, Salesforce, mainframes, etc. It works fine in the integration of legacy software as well."

"It is a very stable product."

"Operationally, I consider the solution to be quite good."

"The ease of mapping... is the single largest feature. It gives us the ability to craft anything. A lot of single-purpose technologies, like Mirth, are good for healthcare messages, but we use webMethods not only for healthcare messages but for other business-related purposes, like integrations to Salesforce or integrations to Office 365. It's multi-purpose nature is very strong."

"I like the solution's policies, transformation, mediation, and routing features."

"What I like best about webMethods Integration Server is its portfolio of connectors."

"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."

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

"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."

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

"The interface needs some work. It is not very user-friendly."

"Prices should be reduced, ideally by up to 30% for long-term customers like us."

"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."

"It is an expensive solution and not very suitable for smaller businesses."

"Technical support is an area where they can improve."

"The logging capability has room for improvement. That way, we could keep a history of all the transactions. It would be helpful to be able to get to that without having to build a standalone solution to do so."

"We got the product via a reseller, and the support from the reseller has been less than desirable."

"It is difficult to maintain."

"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."

"The product is expensive."

"It's a good deal for the money that we pay."

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

"webMethods.io is expensive. We have multiple components, and you need to pay for each of them."

"The solution's development license is free for three to six months. We have to pay for other things."

"Pricing is the number-one downfall. It's too expensive. They could make more money by dropping the price in half and getting more customers. It's the best product there is, but it's too expensive."

"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 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."