We performed a comparison between SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite and Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Managed File Transfer (MFT) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The entire framework is something that is very easy to use, easy to set up, and extremely straightforward. Once you develop a process and once you get it deployed within the process engine, with the latest 6.52 features, the processing engine is actually smart enough to make a decision as to which process engine has less load, and it can exchange messages with that process engine."
"It is a JavaScript or a Java-based system within their mapping tool. You can actually write a lot of code in there. We can perform a lot of the translations even within our mapping, whereas we used to have to do custom programming on our back-end systems to fully integrate."
"The ease of integration of the SEEBURGER product into SAP was pretty seamless. There wasn't any trouble, there weren't any complexities."
"Having the SEEBURGER consulting team perform the installation alleviates a lot of headaches and ensures a stable system."
"SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS) also allowed us to connect EDI vendors at will."
"It has a lot of basic EDI already established for all the main users. Also, it lets me share setups that I had already set up for my first plant. I was able to use them for my second one which was very helpful. I didn't have to start from scratch for my second facility."
"The solution helps us automate processes, more on the insurance side. Where they used to have to babysit monthly files, because of size, they don't have to do that with SEEBURGER BIS. They just run the monthly process. Files get collected, translated, and sent to the proper systems, so the babysitting is gone."
"It's the reliability. And the message tracking is quite good, where we can go in and see if we have an issue."
"The most valuable feature is that it provides 100% reliability for file transmission. It ensures that files get delivered in a secure manner. When you use Connect:Direct, your file 100% gets delivered to the next delivery location. If the log shows that a file got delivered, it will have all the transmitted data without truncation or other data issues."
"Security is the most valuable feature of this product."
"The product has been very stable."
"Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct is a solution that is on the market for a very long time. There is an integrator that has been developed and evolves every year. On the roadmap, there is always a new integration. For example, it's one of the solutions in the market that out of the box can handle EBICS protocol. The file processing is done very well. By default, there are a lot of configurations that can be customized."
"The Security Plus feature of this solution is excellent, and allows you to send encrypted files very securely to remote destinations."
"Automation is the most valuable feature."
"Offers secure file transfers with a fast and efficient protocol for very large files."
"In the BIS, if I want to have some API functionalities, that is a separate tool. The integration between the API tool and the BIS is not that straightforward. If they were to combine these tools and give us one suite, that would be helpful. Today I have a lot of partners onboard. I have something like 50,000 partners doing API transactions. If I want to introduce a new tool for API management, I have to do a lot of workarounds. But if it were integrated well within the existing suite, it could be straightforward for me."
"The integration is not so excellent. While I'm not saying there is a problem, there is no pattern. When we start a new project, we have to work with new people and processes every time. The technical side of their system is very good, but their change process is not repeatable. It needs to be rebuilt each time."
"They made improvements to the email error alerts that go out, for the EDI technical. Those typically go straight out to the partners. Those messages are significantly clearer and easy to read. The same messages in the front end are not nearly as clear. It's supposed to be the same error, but the message that goes out for EDI is really easy for anybody to read and understand, but you have to be really solution-savvy to understand the message in the system itself."
"The product is not integrated very well with different cloud providers. We did work with the vendor to build a solution for Amazon, but there is no solution for other cloud providers like Google or Azure. The vendor needs to create adapters so that if we have a requirement to transfer data from our data center to another cloud, outside of Amazon, we would be delighted with that."
"I would like there to be a feature that could handle the limited server."
"I find the solution quite confusing to use, especially when looking at the tree structure."
"I would've liked, from day one, to learn how to do my own mapping. That would have saved a lot of time and effort if that had been brought forward earlier. It's there, I just didn't know about it. Also, some tidier, easier-to-use interfaces would help."
"The speed of development needs improvement. If you acquire any customization, it can be a slightly slow process. I would like to see more flexibility around customizations. The time frame right now depends on the sophistication and customization, but we have to go through a process of getting them to develop, implement, and test it. This might take a couple of weeks. If it was a simpler system to customize, the time could probably be cut by half or down by even 25 percent of what it would normally take."
"Sometimes we face issues and can't figure out the cause of failures."
"The user interface could be more user-friendly."
"The user interface needs to be improved."
"Technical support is the number one concern."
"User interface is not user friendly."
"Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct could improve by adding some of the functionality that some other vendors have. For example, GoAnywhere has call agents, which are small clients that can be installed on the endpoints and can be handled by the central point on the server. If I want to do this with the IBM solution, I have to sell a lot of account addresses. The price could be unprofitable for the customer. There is some small functionality that could be implemented and could be easily done to improve this solution."
"This solution cannot be deployed on a root_squash NFS, which limits superuser privileges."
"They have File Agent, which is an additional utility and a component of Connect:Direct, for automated file transmission. In that utility, there is some issue with the file name. There is a limitation on the file name, and that is being fixed by IBM."
More SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct Pricing and Cost Advice →
SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite is ranked 13th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 37 reviews while Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct is ranked 6th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 7 reviews. SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite is rated 8.4, while Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite writes "Gives us the flexibility to hook up to systems using any protocol out there". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct writes "Good automation features but needs improvement in the monitoring dashboard ". SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite is most compared with SAP Cloud Platform, IBM Sterling B2B Integration Services, IBM B2B Integrator, Mule ESB and webMethods Integration Server, whereas Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct is most compared with IBM Sterling File Gateway, Kiteworks, Aspera Managed File Transfer, MOVEit and Fortra's Globalscape Managed File Transfer. See our SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite vs. Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct report.
See our list of best Managed File Transfer (MFT) vendors.
We monitor all Managed File Transfer (MFT) 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.