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

Automate vs webMethods.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
8.0
Automate saves time and resources, achieving ROI quickly by reducing manual tasks and IT staff needs through automation.
Sentiment score
7.1
webMethods.io delivers rapid ROI through cost savings, reduced downtime, and increased productivity, depending on specific implementations.
Fortra's Automate has effectively replaced the workload of an entire employee, saving us significant time and money.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.4
Automate customer service is praised for responsive, effective support despite occasional communication issues, with knowledgeable and helpful staff.
Sentiment score
6.6
webMethods.io's customer service is praised for responsiveness, but users note occasional delays and desire improved technical support communication.
They don't always understand the processes I'm trying to implement.
They are very responsive and have been able to resolve any issues I have encountered.
I would rate the technical support as a nine out of ten because it is quite fast and courteous.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.0
Automate offers scalable, cost-effective deployment with support for load balancing and high availability, although scaling complexity exists.
Sentiment score
7.2
webMethods.io is praised for its scalability in cloud and on-premises environments, with some licensing constraints noted.
It is easy to increase one bot or one studio without needing to buy another orchestrator, which can be quite expensive.
Vertically, scalability is fine, however, I have not expanded horizontally with the product yet.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.0
Automate is praised for stability and performance, despite occasional errors, connectivity issues, and recommendations for server improvements.
Sentiment score
7.6
webMethods.io is generally stable and reliable, with minor issues in specific modules and cloud version maturity needed.
The stability of Fortra's Automate is excellent.
It has very robust features, and it is not prone to instability.
There are some issues like the tool hanging or the need for additional jars when exposing web services.
 

Room For Improvement

Users seek improvements in web automation, UI, security, OCR, integration, documentation, stability, AI, cloud functionality, and community access.
webMethods.io needs clearer documentation, better scalability, intuitive interfaces, and improved integration and cost-effectiveness for enhanced user experience.
Integration with Amazon S3 is somewhat lacking.
I would prefer not having to log in to update a ticket; being able to respond via email would be beneficial.
I find that most important features are strong, however, there is a lack of good development for artificial intelligence, such as machine learning.
A special discount of at least 50% for old customers would allow us to expand our services and request more resources.
 

Setup Cost

Automate offers a cost-effective, scalable pricing model with lower costs per bot, unlike UiPath and Blue Prism.
Enterprise buyers find webMethods.io costly but valuable, offering flexibility and comprehensive solutions, particularly beneficial for large-scale enterprises.
Competitors are often more expensive than Automate.
It offered what we wanted at a good, competitive price.
It does a lot but also costs a lot.
 

Valuable Features

Automate offers easy task development and integration with AI resources, efficiently handling tasks with strong support for secure transfers.
webMethods.io excels in seamless integration, user-friendliness, robust security, and scalability, offering efficient tools and reliable management for diverse needs.
Automate's non-reliance on additional orchestrators makes it quite cost-effective.
The most valuable features of Fortra's Automate include its FTP functionality and file manipulation capabilities.
I really like the API functionality; it's a slick aspect of the solution when I'm using it.
It facilitates the exposure of around 235 services through our platform to feed various government entities across the entire country.
 

Categories and Ranking

Automate
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
Robotic Process Automation (RPA) (5th)
webMethods.io
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
92
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (3rd), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (9th), API Management (9th), Cloud Data Integration (7th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)
 

Featured Reviews

Anabel Marco - PeerSpot reviewer
Automates processes efficiently with cost-effective scaling and robust customer support
Web scraping is quite good since it offers a lot of possibilities. Another important feature for me is its compatibility with MBI, the Power that is ISEQUADO Centers. I appreciate the ability to scale and increase the number of bots or studios without additional expense. Automate's non-reliance on additional orchestrators makes it quite cost-effective.
Michele Illiano - PeerSpot reviewer
Can function as an ESB along with the core product, with decent integration of message protocols
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. This is why, for most customers who have to deal with big files, I suggest that they use a product other than ActiveTransfer. I would like to note that this problem mainly concerns large files that undergo extra operations, such assigning, unassigning, or file translation. When these operations take place on large files, ActiveTransfer will use up a lot of resources. Within the product itself, I also believe that there is room for improvement in terms of optimization when it comes to general performance. I suspect that the issues underlying poor optimization are because it is all developed in Java. That is, all the objects and functions that are used need to be better organized, especially when it comes to big files but also overall. webMethods ActiveTransfer was born as an ESB to handle messages, and these messages were typically very short, i.e. small in size. A message is data that you have to send to an application, where it must be received in real-time and possibly processed or acknowledged elsewhere in the system as well. So, because it was initially designed for small messages, it struggles with performance when presented with very large files. All this to say, I suggest that they have an engineer reevaluate the architecture of the product in order to consider cases where large files are sent, and not only small ones. As for new features, compared to other products in the market, I think Software AG should be more up to date when it comes to extra protocol support, especially those protocols that other solutions have included in their products by default. Whenever we need to add an unsupported protocol, we have to go through the effort of custom development in order to work with it. Also, all the banks are obligated to migrate to the new standards, and big companies are all handling translations and operating their libraries with the new protocol formats. But webMethods ActiveTransfer doesn't seem to be keeping up with this evolution. Thus, they should aim to be more compliant in future, along the lines of their competitors such as IBM and Primeur.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
850,760 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Healthcare Company
6%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about HelpSystems AutoMate?
We use it for specific cases, mainly secure file transfers, which are vital for us. And it works for us.
What is your primary use case for HelpSystems AutoMate?
I am a consultant and I am making a lot of processes in human resources, payroll, certifications, trainings, web scraping, pre-reporting, and many processes that need to be automated on the web. My...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortra Automate?
The pricing is quite good compared to its competitors. Competitors are often more expensive than Automate. I would rate the pricing as an eight out of ten.
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

HelpSystems Automate, Automate
Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Aldergrove Financial Group, Preferred Health Professionals, Mindbeam Technologies, First Credit Union in British Columbia, Vestcom International, Prime Liberty Benefits, University of Tampa, CNLBancshares, World Precision Instruments, BJ's Restaurants, Globe Pequot Press, Accudata Technologies, Norton Healthcare, Pacific Toxicology Laboratories
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), Informatica, Salesforce and others in Cloud Data Integration. Updated: May 2025.
850,760 professionals have used our research since 2012.