Unifi vs webMethods.io comparison

"It's easy to manage and support the user, our guests, and our customers if they have a problem."

"The controller makes it easy to control everything from one platform. The management is easy."

"ActiveTransfer lets us maintain the file in the staging area before we transfer it. After that, we can remove the file to make sure that the reconciliation process is done. Sometimes we will zip and unzip the files, but if we have a GKB file, we often ignore it."

"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 solution is scalable."

"The MFT component of webMethods, for example, is easy to set up and convenient to use. It handles files very efficiently and it is easy to automate tasks with complex schedules. Monitoring is centralized to MWS which can be used to monitor other products as well (Trading Networks, BPM, MFT, etc.)"

"The developer portal is a valuable feature."

"This solution has given us a competitive advantage because we have better automation and insight."

"The performance is good."

"It is good for communicating between the systems and for publishing and subscribing. We can easily retrieve data. It is good in terms of troubleshooting and other things."

"It's stable, but it depends on the office and location."

"There are issues with certain Apple devices."

"This is a great solution and the vendor could improve the marketing of the solution to be able to reach more clients."

"In terms of scale, I would give it a four out of 10."

"The product must add more compatible connectors."

"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 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."

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

"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."

"It is quite expensive."

"There is no license. The solution is free."

"The product is expensive."

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

"This is an expensive product and we may replace it with something more reasonably priced."

"It is an expensive tool. I rate the product price a nine out of ten, where ten means it is very expensive."

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

"This is not a cheap solution but, compared to other products such as those offered by IBM, the pricing is similar."

"The pricing and licensing costs for webMethods are very high, which is the only reason that we might switch to another product."

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