TIBCO iProcess Suite vs webMethods.io comparison

"It's very simple to use and the integration features between Java and other services within the workflow are very easy."

"We have a reusable code that we can replicate for any new interfaces."

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

"Application integrations are offered out-of-the-box, and that is extremely important to us. This is one of the main use cases that we have for it. It is about 60 to 70 percent of the workload in our application today."

"One valuable feature is that it is event-driven, so when new data is available on the source it can be quickly processed and displayed. Integration is definitely another useful feature, and B2B is one area where webMethods has its own unique thing going, whereby we can do monitoring of transactions, monitoring of client onboarding, and so on."

"The development is very fast. If you know what you're doing, you can develop something very easily and very fast."

"My impression of webMethods.io's drag-and-drop interface to design workflows is actually amazing."

"From a user perspective, the feature which I like the most about Integration Server is its designer."

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

"Our customers and developers have complained that the UI is a little bit confusing."

"The installation process should be simplified for first time users and be made more user-friendly."

"Some things could be improved, especially how ActiveTransfer handles third-party file transfers. It would be nice to have a native file-watching mechanism for when you're scheduling jobs with a third-party scheduler. Currently, we are using an outside file watcher solution to check the files before the file transfer. It checks the location to see if the file is there. If the file is there, it will prepare it for transfer. If the file isn't available, it will send an email it can create a ticket send it now. We recommended adding this file watcher mechanism."

"The solution has big instances when deployed under microservices or in a containerized platform. They need to improve that so that it is competitive with other integration solutions, like Redis and Kafka. Deployments under microservices with those solutions are much more lightweight, in the size of the runtime itself, compared with Software AG."

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

"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."

"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."

"Understanding the overall architecture is difficult."

"They should develop clear visibility for the onboarding."

"The price could definitely be lower."

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

"The pricing is a yearly license."

"The vendor is flexible with respect to pricing."

"I would like to see better pricing for the license."

"It is worth the cost."

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

"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."

"The solution’s pricing is too high."