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

OpenText Trading Grid 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 Trading Grid
Ranking in Business-to-Business Middleware
12th
Ranking in Cloud Data Integration
35th
Ranking in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
20th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
webMethods.io
Ranking in Business-to-Business Middleware
3rd
Ranking in Cloud Data Integration
10th
Ranking in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
7th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
93
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (11th), API Management (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) category, the mindshare of OpenText Trading Grid is 1.8%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 7.9%, down from 9.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
webMethods.io7.9%
OpenText Trading Grid1.8%
Other90.3%
Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
 

Featured Reviews

VARUNKUMAR - PeerSpot reviewer
Industry-leading, easy to implement, and has good mapping specification guidelines
The good thing about OpenText is that we have the mapping specification guideline available, which is not there in a solution like SEEBURGER. Whenever you want to take a decision to move away from OpenText, you have already documented your mapping and what your mapping looks like. So you go to the next provider, provide them with that mapping specification, and it'll be very easy for them to develop a new map instead of just taking the data - input data, output data - and then looking for how the data is getting transformed. So you have the mapping spec level which is a very good feature of OpenText, which we do not have in SEEBURGER. It's very hard to move from SEEBURGER. The solution is easy to implement. It's stable and reliable. They are the industry leaders in the integration space.
Derrick Brockel - PeerSpot reviewer
An integration platform that enables you to automate tasks by connecting apps and services
Follow best practices,engage in their professional services to help build your messaging system and to be PR have some PR emphasis and and blue Bluegreen deployment You could take half your your clusters out, upgrade them, and put them back in so you have a quick callback. And also patch quarterly, we got we got downbound. And and at that point, it's a little hard to get into the cycle when you're releasing software every every week, and you're trying to, go through an upgrade seven fifty servers, it's a little hard to get into the upgrade flow when when you're running that tight. I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution is easy to implement."
"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."
"There were no complexities involved in the setup phase...The product is able to meet my company's API protection needs."
"I like the solution's policies, transformation, mediation, and routing features."
"The orchestration aspects of APIs, the integration capabilities, and the logging functionalities were the most critical features of our workflow."
"The comprehensiveness and depth of Integration Servers' connectors to packaged apps and custom apps is unlimited. They have a connector for everything. If they don't, you can build it yourself. Or oftentimes, if there is value for other customers as well, you can talk with webMethods about creating a new adapter for you."
"My impression of webMethods.io's drag-and-drop interface to design workflows is actually amazing."
"It’s fairly easy to view, move, and mange access across different components. Different component types are categorized and can be viewed in a web based administration console."
"webMethods platform is used to build an EAI platform, enabling communication between many internal systems and third-party operators."
 

Cons

"Technical support needs to be better."
"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."
"The solution's release management feature could be better."
"t doesn't represent OOP very well, just a method and proprietary interface called IData."
"For code version control, you need to use some external software."
"Rapid application development has to be considered, especially for UI, where user interference is crucial."
"The deployment should be simplified."
"Business monitoring (BAM) needs improvement because the analytics and prediction module very often has performance problems."
"wM SAP Adapter User Guide - Example, like Message Broker setup was unclear, leading to issues during Testing and we had refer the internet forums to understand that there is a Message Broker Cleanup utility and that needs to be setup as well."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Some who consider this solution often avoid it due to its high price."
"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."
"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."
"webMethods.io Integration's pricing is high and has yearly subscription costs."
"The pricing is a yearly license."
"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."
"It is a cost-effective solution."
"The solution’s pricing is too high."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) solutions are best for your needs.
872,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
15%
Retailer
13%
Computer Software Company
8%
Real Estate/Law Firm
6%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise63
 

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

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Autoliv, Hella, Hutchinson, Michelin
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Salesforce, SAP and others in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS). Updated: September 2025.
872,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.