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

HiT Software DBMoto 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:
 

Categories and Ranking

HiT Software DBMoto
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Data Replication (22nd)
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

reviewer1077405 - PeerSpot reviewer
Replication monitor feature is helpful in that it allows a quick view of the status, errors, and results of the last replication
We appreciate the ease of use in this solution. It looks like File Explorer, where you set up your source and targets. Replications are created simply by using the replication wizard. It also has functionality for scheduling, verification, and alerts. The ability to write code for transformations is very useful. Once the replications are set up it is simple to maintain. The Replication monitor is helpful in that it allows a quick view of the status, errors, and results of the last replication. Replication logs and history files are very useful for determining problematic data issues. The transaction latency tool is also helpful for determining how many connections are required for larger files. The replication types that are available are: Refresh Only, Continuous, and Synchronization. We currently use Refresh Only (scheduled refreshes), and Continuous. The source and target table verification is very helpful for running checks. The Replication Monitor is also a great plus, which shows a quick view of the replication status.
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

"DBMoto was very simple to set up and move our tables to the Oracle DB."
"The most valuable features are that is easy to install and it is user-friendly."
"webMethods API Portal is overall very valuable. It is now a comprehensive API catalogue that serves various purposes, including API assessment and evaluation."
"It's very flexible and a good platform to use."
"The orchestration aspects of APIs, the integration capabilities, and the logging functionalities were the most critical features of our workflow."
"High throughput and excellent scalability."
"The messaging part is the most valuable feature."
"We can arrange data caching and look at the solid state. Also, the API gateway is a very good component that can handle relevant cachings and integrations, as well as and also load permitting."
"Oracle's self-service capabilities, of which we make extensive use, is the most valuable feature."
"It is good for communicating between the systems and for publishing and subscribing. We can easily retrieve data. It is good in terms of troubleshooting and other things."
 

Cons

"Pricing is an area that needs improvement."
"This product would be improved with additional built-in functions for simpler date conversion, as well as for data type transformations."
"Rapid application development has to be considered, especially for UI, where user interference is crucial."
"We got the product via a reseller, and the support from the reseller has been less than desirable."
"The stability of the various modules of the product suite have been a bit of a concern lately. Though their support team is always easy to reach out to, I would prefer it not come to that."
"It is an expensive solution and not very suitable for smaller businesses."
"Perhaps in the area of Microservices, where I think Trading Networks could benefit from some improvements."
"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."
"Prices should be reduced, ideally by up to 30% for long-term customers like us."
"A while ago, they were hacked, and it took them a very long time to open their website again in order to download any service packs or any features. I don't know what they could do differently. I know that they were vulnerable, and there was some downtime, but because they were down, we were unable to download any potential service packs."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Customers pay a license fee yearly."
"I found the price to be quite reasonable."
"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."
"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."
"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 price of webMethods Integration Server isn't that high from an enterprise context, but open-source ESB solutions will always be the cheapest."
"I would like to see better pricing for the license."
"webMethods.io Integration's pricing is high and has yearly subscription costs."
"It is expensive, but we reached a good agreement with the company. It is still a little bit expensive, but we got a better deal than the previous one."
"This is an expensive product and we may replace it with something more reasonably priced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
850,236 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
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

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

JAS Forwarding Worldwide, Animal, Financiera Pagos Internacionales C.F., Bur de Credito, Qualitas-IT, EFCO Corporation, Andrews Consulting, ASL Modena, BancAssurance Popolari S.p.A., Banco BICSA, Cheshire County Council, Epson Precision, Ferrari North America
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about HiT Software DBMoto vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,236 professionals have used our research since 2012.