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

SWIFTnet FIN 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

SWIFTnet FIN
Ranking in Business-to-Business Middleware
9th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
8.2
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
webMethods.io
Ranking in Business-to-Business Middleware
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
92
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (9th), API Management (9th), Cloud Data Integration (7th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Business-to-Business Middleware category, the mindshare of SWIFTnet FIN is 5.0%, down from 5.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 10.0%, up from 8.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business-to-Business Middleware
 

Featured Reviews

VK
Reliability and support ensure secure financial messaging over decades
The most valuable feature of SWIFTnet FIN ( /products/swiftnet-fin-reviews ) is its reliability. For a bank, reliability is the most critical aspect. We also appreciate the extensive support facilities available worldwide. SWIFTnet FIN's services provide us with reliable connections to entities like European Central Bank, and we plan to join CLS as a direct member through SWIFTnet FIN. The store and forward feature, along with real-time messaging services, are crucial for our operations. Their security measures and compliance with CSP ( /products/threat-stack-cloud-security-platform-eol-reviews ) program ensure the highest safety standards. Audits and assessments by companies like KPMG and Ernst & Young further validate SWIFTnet FIN's reliability.
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

"The most valuable feature of SWIFTnet FIN is its reliability."
"It provides the ability to interact with financial institutions and apply the same rules."
"They are the building blocks of EAI in SAG products, and they offer a very good platform."
"The messaging part is the most valuable feature."
"webMethods API Portal is overall very valuable. It is now a comprehensive API catalogue that serves various purposes, including API assessment and evaluation."
"The connectivity that the tool provides, along with the functionalities needed for our company's business, are some of the beneficial aspects of the product."
"The product supports various types of digital documents, including XMLs and EDI."
"There were no complexities involved in the setup phase...The product is able to meet my company's API protection needs."
"What I like the most about the solution is that it comes with ready-made tools like handling security tokens and OAuth."
"With webMethods, the creation of servers and the utilization of Trading Networks facilitate B2B integration. It resolves any related issues effectively."
 

Cons

"I would like for them to work in real-time."
"While SWIFTnet FIN is a robust system, there is room for minor improvements in scalability and installation complexity."
"This product has too many gaps. You find them after update installations. This should be covered by automatic testing."
"Documentation needs tuning. There is a lot of dependency with SoftwareAG. Even with the documentation at hand, you can struggle to implement scenarios without SAG’s help. By contrast, IBM’s documentation is self-explanatory, in my opinion."
"The configuring of the JWT token would be improved as it is a confusing process. We require more information on this part of the solution."
"The orchestration is not as good as it should be."
"webMethods.io needs to incorporate ChatGPT to enhance user experience. It can offer a customized user experience."
"Technical support is an area where they can improve."
"On the monitoring side of things, the UI for monitoring could be improved. It's a bit cumbersome to work with."
"With performance, there is room for improvement in regards to if we would like to put another extra layer of security on it, such as SSL. This is affecting their performance quite significantly. They need to improve the process of managing the SSL and other things inside their solutions, so there will not be quite such a significant impact to the performance."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Currently, the licensing solution for this product is pretty straightforward. The way that Software AG has moved in their licensing agreements is very understandable. It is very easy for you to see where things land. Like most vendors today, they are transaction based. Therefore, just having a good understanding of how many transactions that you are doing a year would be very wise. Luckily, there are opportunities to work with the vendor to get a good understanding of how many transactions you have and what is the right limit for you to fall under."
"There is a license needed to use the webMethods Integration Server."
"Pricing is the number-one downfall. It's too expensive. They could make more money by dropping the price in half and getting more customers. It's the best product there is, but it's too expensive."
"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."
"It is an expensive tool. I rate the product price a nine out of ten, where ten means it is very expensive."
"Its cost depends on the use cases."
"It's a good deal for the money that we pay."
"Sometimes we don't have a very clear idea what the licensing will entail at first, because it can be very customizable. On one hand, this can be a good thing, because it can be tailored to a specific customer's needs. But on the other hand it can also be an issue when some customer asks, "What's the cost?" and we can't yet give them an accurate answer."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business-to-Business Middleware solutions are best for your needs.
851,371 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
56%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
5%
Retailer
3%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with SWIFTnet FIN?
While SWIFTnet FIN is a robust system, there is room for minor improvements in scalability and installation complexity. Simplifying installation processes, especially for new users, could enhance i...
What is your primary use case for SWIFTnet FIN?
We use SWIFTnet FIN ( /products/swiftnet-fin-reviews ) for almost everything, including international payments and sending files. It's essential for various financial messaging, such as file act, e...
What advice do you have for others considering SWIFTnet FIN?
Overall, SWIFTnet FIN is a highly reliable system with excellent support and security measures. While it's not perfect in scalability and installation, the system aligns well with our needs. I rate...
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

No data available
Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Alcatel-Lucent, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Canadian National Railway, General Electric Company, Huawei, Novartis International, Standard Bank, UniCredit, Volvo
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about SWIFTnet FIN vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
851,371 professionals have used our research since 2012.