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

OpenText MBPM 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

OpenText MBPM
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Management (BPM) (39th)
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

Jaideep MS - PeerSpot reviewer
A solution offering good automation capabilities while needing to improve its support and documentation
I think the solution's support could do a better job. I rate the support somewhere around four and five out of ten. There is a hoard of people that they get in touch with while contacting them. So we've done some work with them in the past. I mean, we've been a support partner for a while. But apart from that, in terms of understanding the issues for a particular technology, I think there is a lack of people at their end. So they don't really have many people with them. And by the time we could get hold of the right person, especially for production issues, it's a little too late.
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

"Not just the solution's automation capabilities, but we like everything about it since we are more of a system integrator."
"webMethods platform is used to build an EAI platform, enabling communication between many internal systems and third-party operators."
"One [of the most valuable features] is the webMethods Designer. That helps our developers develop on their own. It's very intuitive for design. It helps our developers to speed the development of services for the integrations."
"The product is powerful, straightforward, and easy to use."
"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."
"What I like the most about the solution is that it comes with ready-made tools like handling security tokens and OAuth."
"The tool supports gRPC."
"It integrates well with various servers."
"The messaging part is the most valuable feature."
 

Cons

"There are shortcomings in the solution's support and documentation part."
"The user interface could be better in OpenText MBPM."
"I'd like to see the admin portal for managing the integration server go up a level, to have more capabilities and to be given a more modern web interface."
"Prices should be reduced, ideally by up to 30% for long-term customers like us."
"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."
"The installation process should be simplified for first time users and be made more user-friendly."
"Other products have been using AI and cloud enhancements, but webMethods Integration Server is still lagging in that key area."
"webMethods Integration Server needs to add more adapters."
"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."
"With respect to the API gateway, the runtime component, the stability after a new release is something that can be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"On a scale of one to ten, where one is cost-efficient, and ten is expensive, I rate the pricing somewhere between nine and ten since it is a costly solution."
"There is an annual license to use OpenText MBPM."
"I would like to see better pricing for the license."
"Based on our team discussions and feedback, it is pretty costly because they charge us for each transmission."
"The product is expensive."
"It's a good deal for the money that we pay."
"webMethods Trading Networks is a bit costly compared to others solutions."
"The vendor is flexible with respect to pricing."
"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."
"Initialy good pricing and good, if it comes to Enterprise license agreements."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
851,451 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Government
16%
Insurance Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OpenText MBPM?
On a scale of one to ten, where one is cost-efficient, and ten is expensive, I rate the pricing somewhere between nine and ten since it is a costly solution.
What needs improvement with OpenText MBPM?
There are shortcomings in the solution's support and documentation part. However, support is a major area that needs improvement. In general, the technical documentation isn't available to start wi...
What is your primary use case for OpenText MBPM?
We use OpenText MBPM for business process management and vendor invoice management. There are a lot of other variations as well. So we don't just use it for automation. Primarily, we get informatio...
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

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Kommunales Rechenzentrum Minden-Ravensburg/Lippe (KRZ), Hawksford Group, Gauteng Provincial Government Department of Economic Development, Deutsche Post DHL, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, London Underground, Great Clips, Fiat, Rompetrol, Gaston Memorial Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Bachmann, Alliance Healthcare
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.
851,451 professionals have used our research since 2012.