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

TIBCO iProcess Suite 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

TIBCO iProcess Suite
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Management (BPM) (40th)
webMethods.io
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
92
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (3rd), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (9th), API Management (9th), Cloud Data Integration (7th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)
 

Featured Reviews

SA
An easy-to-use solution with great integration
It involves a lot of investment. The learning curve is not similar to other products, like K2. Regarding the user interface, I have to access workflows and define and manage the processes on the variant of a Windows application, which is not accessible if you don't have access from the client to install it on the workstation. And most of the solutions we're currently evaluating are web-based. Our customers and developers have complained that the UI is a little bit confusing. It has lots of elements. It's not user-intuitive compared to other products. Other than that, the licensing model is our main concern.
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

"It's very simple to use and the integration features between Java and other services within the workflow are very easy."
"The development is very fast. If you know what you're doing, you can develop something very easily and very fast."
"A product with good API and EDI components."
"It's obvious that the heart of the product lies here. It's comprised of all aspects of ESB (Enterprise Gateway, Adapter, TN, Java) and BPM (task, rules engine)."
"What I found most valuable in webMethods Integration Server is that it's a strong ESB. It also has strong API modules and portals."
"webMethods API Portal is overall very valuable. It is now a comprehensive API catalogue that serves various purposes, including API assessment and evaluation."
"There's hardware, software and application integration, providing hosting flexibility."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"The product is powerful, straightforward, and easy to use."
 

Cons

"Our customers and developers have complained that the UI is a little bit confusing."
"The solution's release management feature could be better."
"t doesn't represent OOP very well, just a method and proprietary interface called IData."
"The price should be reduced to make it more affordable."
"The installation process should be simplified for first time users and be made more user-friendly."
"The market webMethods Integration Server falls under is a very crowded market, so for the product to stand out, Software AG would need to get traction in the open source community by releasing a new version or a base version and open source it, so people can create new custom components and add it to the portfolio."
"On the monitoring side of things, the UI for monitoring could be improved. It's a bit cumbersome to work with."
"webMethods Integration Server needs to add more adapters."
"The product needs to be improved in a few ways. First, they need to stabilize the components of the whole platform across versions. Also, they should stop replacing old components with brand new ones and, rather, improve by evolution."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price could definitely be lower."
"webMethods.io is expensive. We have multiple components, and you need to pay for each of them."
"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."
"I don’t have much idea about prices, but webMethods API Portal is not something cheaper."
"The product is very expensive."
"Always plan five years ahead and don’t jeopardize the quality of your project by dropping items from the bill of materials."
"The vendor is flexible with respect to pricing."
"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."
"The solution's development license is free for three to six months. We have to pay for other things."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
852,098 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
30%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Computer Software Company
13%
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

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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

iProcess Suite
Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Delta Air Lines, Detroit Water and Sewerage, DVLA, E-Plus, FedEx, Geisinger Health System, ING Turkey, Kempen & Co., KPN, LCL, Merck, Merial
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), Informatica, Salesforce and others in Cloud Data Integration. Updated: May 2025.
852,098 professionals have used our research since 2012.