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

Frends vs webMethods.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 2024

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

Frends
Ranking in API Management
23rd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
webMethods.io
Ranking in API Management
9th
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), Cloud Data Integration (7th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the API Management category, the mindshare of Frends is 0.2%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 2.3%, up from 2.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
API Management
 

Featured Reviews

Kalle Reponen - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers simplicity, ease of customization, and visibility of integrations
One thing is that Frends keep the integration, and that is something I know that it's coming, like, a later version; that is something we will be currently missing. So the end-users could take an interest in use by themselves, with the release thing some result flow. That is the most wanted and requested feature for now. Another enhancement includes the monitoring part. It would be nice to have some sort of maybe mobile app on which we can see how integrations are running if there are some problems, and getting those alerts on the mobile would be really nice.
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The product has valuable features for version control."
"One of the benefits is the speed of creating something new. Second, it's replacing the old integration quite fast. Then it is like the visibility of the integration and the possibility to see what is happening in the integration."
"The user-friendly interface for constructing integration solutions is also a notable benefit."
"The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is its reliability. It has a lot of great documentation from the service providers. Additionally, it is easy to use."
"The core product can be used not only for automatic file transfers between applications, but also as an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)."
"The most valuable aspect of this solution for me has been the configuration-based UI. Once you get the hang of it, it enables you to easily develop an API. In addition, it has many in-built policies that are quite handy."
"In the API gateway, there is a new feature that allows us to filter logs within a payload. This has been a useful feature."
"The synchronous and asynchronous messaging system the solution provides is very good."
"webMethods platform is used to build an EAI platform, enabling communication between many internal systems and third-party operators."
"Ease of implementation and flexibility to hold the business logic are the most valuable features."
"I like the tool's scalability."
 

Cons

"It is a new application and lacks some essential features compared to competitors."
"One of the primary areas for improvement is a more mobile-friendly interface for the control center."
"Another enhancement includes the monitoring part. It would be nice to have some sort of maybe mobile app on which we can see how integrations are running if there are some problems, and getting those alerts on the mobile would be really nice."
"This is a great solution and the vendor could improve the marketing of the solution to be able to reach more clients."
"Upgrades are complex. They typically take about five months from start to finish. There are many packages that plug into webMethods Integration Server, which is the central point for a vast majority of the transactions at my organization. Anytime we are upgrading that, there are complexities within each component that we must understand. That makes any upgrade very cumbersome and complicated. That has been my experience at this company. Because there are many different business units that we are touching, there are so many different components that we are touching. The amount of READMEs that you have to go through takes some time."
"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."
"webMethods Integration Server could improve on the version control. I'm not sure if Web Method has some kind of inbuilt integration with Bitbucket or GitHub or some kind of version control system. However, that's one area where they can improve."
"Prices should be reduced, ideally by up to 30% for long-term customers like us."
"I would like the solution to provide bi-weekly updates."
"It is quite expensive."
"The products, at the moment, are new and there should perhaps be support for the older version of the protocols."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is quite fair."
"Recent changes in their pricing have removed this benefit, moving towards process-specific pricing."
"webMethods Integration Server is expensive, and there's no fixed price on it because it has a point pricing model. You can negotiate, which makes it interesting."
"It's a good deal for the money that we pay."
"webMethods.io Integration's pricing is high and has yearly subscription costs."
"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."
"Based on our team discussions and feedback, it is pretty costly because they charge us for each transmission."
"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."
"Its cost depends on the use cases."
"Some of the licensing is "component-ized," which is confusing to new users/customers."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Management solutions are best for your needs.
850,236 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
59%
Computer Software Company
14%
Construction Company
4%
Insurance Company
3%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
12%
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 Frends?
The product has valuable features for version control.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Frends?
The pricing is quite fair. It is quite low compared to competitors, especially when you consider that Frends is a US-based company. So, it's almost cheap compared to them. But, we have an unlimited...
What needs improvement with Frends?
It is a new application and lacks some essential features compared to competitors. Basic features like reading and editing into Excel file format could be included.
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

Information Not Available
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about Frends vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,236 professionals have used our research since 2012.