IBM InfoSphere Information Server vs webMethods.io comparison

"The integration with different technologies is the most valuable feature."

"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."

"This solution is extremely flexible and scalable."

"IBM InfoSphere Information Server is stable."

"Our use case is for integration factory for SAP. It is mostly for SAP integration."

"My impression of webMethods.io's drag-and-drop interface to design workflows is actually amazing."

"The development is very fast. If you know what you're doing, you can develop something very easily and very fast."

"Given that you have one integration API in place, it takes very minimal effort to scale it to any other application that might want to use the same. Its flow-based development environment is a breeze and makes it really easy to re-use most of the existing components and build up a new API."

"The product is very stable."

"I would say the core Web-based integrations work the best. They are the most efficient and robust implementations one can do with webMethods."

"The most valuable feature of webMethods Integration Server is all the capabilities it provides. We leverage most of the features, that they have offered to us. Our vendor has made some additional features on top of the webMethods Integration Server and we use all the features together."

"There were no complexities involved in the setup phase...The product is able to meet my company's API protection needs."

"IBM InfoSphere Information Server should be more scalable. It should have the option to change the configuration to run on a single, non-multiple node, or multi-threading processing."

"Their technical support needs improvement."

"There are certain shortcomings in the cloud side of the solution, where improvements are required."

"This solution would benefit from the engine being made more lightweight."

"For code version control, you need to use some external software."

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

"The on-premises setup can be difficult."

"This product has too many gaps. You find them after update installations. This should be covered by automatic testing."

"This solution could be improved by offering subscription based licensing."

"Documentation needs tuning. There is a lot of dependency with SoftwareAG. Even with the documentation at hand, you can struggle to implement scenarios without SAG’s help. By contrast, IBM’s documentation is self-explanatory, in my opinion."

"It is difficult to maintain."

"Version control is not very easy. The packages and the integration server are on Eclipse IDE, but you can't compare the code from the IDE. For example, if you are working on Java code, doing version control and deployment for a quick comparison between the code isn't easy. Some tools or plug-ins are there, such as CrossVista, and you can also play with an SVN server where you have to place your package, and from there, you can check, but you have to do that as a separate exercise. You can't do it from the IDE or webMethods server. You can't just right-click and upload your service."

"The licensing cost of IBM InfoSphere Information Server depends on how many users there are."

"I signed a three-year deal with them. It is a yearly locked-in price for the next three years."

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

"webMethods.io Integration's pricing is high and has yearly subscription costs."

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

"Most of my clients would like the price of the solution to be reduced."

"I do think webMethods is coming under increasing pressure when it comes to their price-to-feature value proposition. It's probably the single biggest strategic risk they have. They're very expensive in their industry. They've been raising the price recently, especially when compared with their competitors."

"It is an expensive tool. I rate the product price a nine out of ten, where ten means it is very expensive."

"It is a cost-effective solution."