OpenText Trading Grid vs webMethods.io comparison

"The solution is easy to implement."

"The synchronous and asynchronous messaging system the solution provides is very good."

"The cloud version of the solution is very easy to set up."

"One of the most important features is that it gives you the possibility to do low-level integration. It provides a lot of features out of the box, and over the years, it has matured so much that any problem that is there in the market can be solved with this product. We can meet any requirements through customizations, transformations, or the logic that needs to be put in. Some of the other products struggle in this aspect. They cannot do things in a certain way, or they have a product limitation, whereas, with webMethods, I have never faced this kind of problem."

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

"The stability is good."

"It's a visual tool, so our transformations can be quickly implemented without a lot of fuss. The fact that we have an easy way to expose REST services is also very interesting. It offers the possibility to connect over GMS to synchronize message brokers."

"With webMethods, the creation of servers and the utilization of Trading Networks facilitate B2B integration. It resolves any related issues effectively."

"The performance is good."

"Technical support needs to be better."

"The product must add more compatible connectors."

"Other products have been using AI and cloud enhancements, but webMethods Integration Server is still lagging in that key area."

"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."

"A while ago, they were hacked, and it took them a very long time to open their website again in order to download any service packs or any features. I don't know what they could do differently. I know that they were vulnerable, and there was some downtime, but because they were down, we were unable to download any potential service packs."

"In terms of improvements, maybe on the API monetization side, having users able to create separate consumption plans and throttle all those consumption plans towards the run time could be better."

"We got the product via a reseller, and the support from the reseller has been less than desirable."

"The solution's release management feature could be better."

"The Software AG Designer could be more memory-efficient or CPU-efficient so that we can use it with middle-spec hardware."

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

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

"The product is very expensive."

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

"Some who consider this solution often avoid it due to its high price."

"I am not involved in the licensing side of things."

"Some of the licensing is "component-ized," which is confusing to new users/customers."

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