OpenText Trading Grid vs webMethods.io comparison

"The solution is easy to implement."

"Within the new version, webMethods API Gateway gives us an end-to-end lifecycle from the creation of the API up into the development, deployment, and promotion into production/live. The current end-to-end lifecycle of the API gives us enough authority and governance of the API. We know what are currently live services, what is in the testing stage of development, and what version that has been commissioned. So, the full life cycle itself gives us full authority and governance of the API."

"I like the stability of the webMethods Integration Server."

"The MFT component of webMethods, for example, is easy to set up and convenient to use. It handles files very efficiently and it is easy to automate tasks with complex schedules. Monitoring is centralized to MWS which can be used to monitor other products as well (Trading Networks, BPM, MFT, etc.)"

"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 product supports various types of digital documents, including XMLs and EDI."

"It's a good tool, and it has a stable messaging broker."

"The ease of mapping... is the single largest feature. It gives us the ability to craft anything. A lot of single-purpose technologies, like Mirth, are good for healthcare messages, but we use webMethods not only for healthcare messages but for other business-related purposes, like integrations to Salesforce or integrations to Office 365. It's multi-purpose nature is very strong."

"It integrates well with various servers."

"Technical support needs to be better."

"It is difficult to maintain."

"The certifications and learning resources are not exposed openly enough. For instance, they have a trial version which comes with only a few basic features, and I think that community-wise they need to offer more free or open spaces where developers can feel encouraged to experiment."

"With respect to the API gateway, the runtime component, the stability after a new release is something that can be improved."

"The deployment should be simplified."

"When migration happens from the one release to an upgraded release from Software AG, many of the existing services are deprecated and developers have to put in effort testing and redeveloping some of the services. It would be better that upgrade releases took care to support the lower-level versions of webMethods."

"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."

"t doesn't represent OOP very well, just a method and proprietary interface called IData."

"I am not satisfied with the solution because it takes too much effort to migrate and add new information. The migration could be easier."

"The price is a little bit high, especially regarding their support."

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

"The price is high and I give it a five out of ten."

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

"Based on our team discussions and feedback, it is pretty costly because they charge us for each transmission."

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

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

"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."