Infor ION vs webMethods.io comparison

Infor and IBM are both solutions in the Business-to-Business Middleware category. Infor is ranked #10 with an average rating of 8.7, while IBM is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.1. Infor holds a 3.4% mindshare in BBM, compared to IBM’s 10.0% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Infor users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 94% of IBM users who would recommend it.

Infor ION

Read 5 Infor ION reviews

518 Views
287 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

webMethods.io

Read 92 webMethods.io reviews

1,011 Views
742 Comparison Views

94% willing to recommend

Infor ION

webMethods.io

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 27, 2025

webMethods.io and Infor ION are prominent solutions in the integration platform space. WebMethods.io frequently outshines Infor ION with its competitive pricing and ease of initial deployment.

Features: webMethods.io provides a comprehensive connector library, real-time integration, and flexible data transformation capabilities. Infor ION includes advanced analytics, workflow automation, and a unified platform for data orchestration.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service:webMethods.io features a straightforward deployment process complemented by responsive customer service. Infor ION involves a more complex setup but provides substantial support resources that assist with implementation.

Pricing and ROI: webMethods.io offers an affordable pricing model that ensures strong ROI for budget-conscious businesses. Infor ION has higher upfront costs, justified by its extensive feature offerings that yield significant ROI over time.

To learn more, read our detailed Infor ION vs. webMethods.io Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Infor ION vs. webMethods.io

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 850,028 peers since 2012

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

Infor ION

Ranking in Business-to-Business Middleware

10th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

webMethods.io

Ranking in Business-to-Business Middleware

3rd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (10th), API Management (10th), Cloud Data Integration (7th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Business-to-Business Middleware category, the mindshare of Infor ION is 3.4%, up from 3.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 10.0%, up from 8.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Business-to-Business Middleware

Featured Reviews

Eugenio Santos

IT and processes re-engineering manager at DEUTZ AG

Serves as reliable middleware enabling efficient document handling and seamless connectivity between different systems

The main issue for me is that the current product is obsolete, and I need to migrate to Infor 10 for more features. Accessing the interface and monitoring aspects is problematic, and I hope it improves in the new version. Integration with third parties is delicate and can be expensive without involvement from Infor.

Read full review

Michele Illiano

Head of Division at Innovery

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"ION is good for building custom middleware boxes."

"We haven't had any issues with ION so far."

"Its stability is commendable, as I rarely encounter bugs or problems."

"I have found the most valuable feature to be the ability to monitor integration performance and the reasons for the failure of inbound and outbound transactions. We can see both inbound and outbound transactions, and it gives us a mirror image or the whole history of all inbound and outbound transactions between Infor M3 Business Engine and the third parties."

"The tool's most valuable feature is middleware capabilities."

"ION acts as a middleware that allows me to handle all the volumes of incoming and outgoing documents with partners."

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

"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 tool is very powerful and user-friendly."

"All of the components are very independent but are tied together to give the business value."

"Most of the work in our organization can be more easily done using the tool."

"I like the tool's scalability."

"Segregation of deployment for the environments is the most valuable feature of the solution."

"Currently, we're using this solution for the integration server which helps us to integrate with the mainframe."

More webMethods.io pros

Cons

"The main issue for me is that the current product is obsolete, and I need to migrate to Infor 10 for more features."

"ION's integration with older applications could be better."

"Infor ION doesn't provide connectors for all integration touchpoints. Sometimes, we may have to build our own. It incurs additional costs for the customer."

"The main issue for me is that the current product is obsolete, and I need to migrate to Infor 10 for more features. Accessing the interface and monitoring aspects is problematic, and I hope it improves in the new version."

"I would like to see ION add automated setup and integration with Salesforce. They need to work on these types of tools."

"The dashboard is not very simple and can be a bit tricky."

"The UI for the admin console is very old. It hasn't been updated for years and is pretty much the same one that we started with. This is something that could be refreshed and made more modern."

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

"It would be nice if they had a change management system offering. We built our own deployer application because the one built into webMethods couldn't enforce change management rules. Integration into a change management system, along with the version control system, would be a good offering; it's something that they're lacking."

"The licensing cost is high compared to other options."

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

"Some things could be improved, especially how ActiveTransfer handles third-party file transfers. It would be nice to have a native file-watching mechanism for when you're scheduling jobs with a third-party scheduler. Currently, we are using an outside file watcher solution to check the files before the file transfer. It checks the location to see if the file is there. If the file is there, it will prepare it for transfer. If the file isn't available, it will send an email it can create a ticket send it now. We recommended adding this file watcher mechanism."

"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 could be more user-friendly."

More webMethods.io cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"Its cost depends on the use cases."

"The pricing and licensing costs for webMethods are very high, which is the only reason that we might switch to another product."

"This is not a cheap solution but, compared to other products such as those offered by IBM, the pricing is similar."

"There is a license needed to use the webMethods Integration Server."

"With our current licensing, it's very easy for us to scale. With our older licensing model, it was very hard. This is definitely something that I would highlight."

"The price of webMethods Integration Server isn't that high from an enterprise context, but open-source ESB solutions will always be the cheapest."

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

"The product is very expensive."

More webMethods.io pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business-to-Business Middleware solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

19%

Computer Software Company

17%

Healthcare Company

Wholesaler/Distributor

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Retailer

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Infor ION?

The tool's most valuable feature is middleware capabilities.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Infor ION?

The product is not expensive. I paid for the licenses, and the annual support fee is reasonable in comparison to other APIs.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Infor ION?

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Built.io Flow?

webMethods.io needs to incorporate ChatGPT to enhance user experience. It can offer a customized user experience.

See all answers

Comparisons

MuleSoft Anypoint Platform vs Infor ION

Compared 100% of the time

More Infor ION Competitors

IBM App Connect vs webMethods.io

Compared 8% of the time

IBM Integration Bus vs webMethods.io

Compared 8% of the time

Apigee vs webMethods.io

Compared 7% of the time

Boomi iPaaS vs webMethods.io

Compared 4% of the time

IBM Sterling B2B Integration Services vs webMethods.io

Compared 4% of the time

More webMethods.io Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Business-to-Business Middleware

March 2025

Download Infor ION product report

Buyer's Guide

webMethods.io

April 2025

Download webMethods.io product report

Also Known As

Infor Intelligent Open Network

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

Overview

Infor ION provides the flexibility you need to make an often complex web of enterprise systems work together. It provides the long-term sustainability to optimize return on technology investments. With ION, one application can be upgraded, replaced, or even fail without taking the entire network down.

Infor

webMethods.io Integration is a powerful integration platform as a service (iPaaS) that provides a combination of capabilities offered by ESBs, data integration systems, API management tools, and B2B gateways.

IBM

Sample Customers

FINIDR, Midsona, Eynsham Hall, Midwest Wheel, Watchfire Signs, Sanford Health, Royal Adelaide

Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings

Buyer's Guide

Infor ION vs. webMethods.io

April 2025

Free Report: Infor ION vs. webMethods.io

Find out what your peers are saying about Infor ION vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Infor ION vs. webMethods.io report.

See our list of best Business-to-Business Middleware vendors and best Cloud Data Integration vendors.

We monitor all Business-to-Business Middleware reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.