We performed a comparison between webMethods Integration Server and WSO2 Enterprise Integrator based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is the built-in monitoring, auditing, RETS, and SOAP services."
"The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is its reliability. It has a lot of great documentation from the service providers. Additionally, it is easy to use."
"Some of the key features are the integration platform, query mechanism, message handling within the bus, and the rules engine. We've had a really good experience with webMethods Integration Server."
"The stability is good."
"Ease of implementation and flexibility to hold the business logic are the most valuable features."
"The synchronous and asynchronous messaging system the solution provides is very good."
"It frankly fills the gap between IT and business by having approval and policy enforcement on each state and cycle of the asset from the moment it gets created until it is retired."
"Given that you have one integration API in place, it takes very minimal effort to scale it to any other application that might want to use the same. Its flow-based development environment is a breeze and makes it really easy to re-use most of the existing components and build up a new API."
"The installation process is easy."
"The stability is excellent."
"The productivity is the most valuable feature. It is very easy to write remediations."
"The learning curve for this solution is very good."
"The solution's customer service is good."
"It's a very complete product. It allows us to network security and add more layers of security to the system."
"It was mostly easy to set up the product."
"The solution has two main parts: integration and transformation. It's very user-friendly and easy to understand for everyone."
"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."
"Upgrades are complex. They typically take about five months from start to finish. There are many packages that plug into webMethods Integration Server, which is the central point for a vast majority of the transactions at my organization. Anytime we are upgrading that, there are complexities within each component that we must understand. That makes any upgrade very cumbersome and complicated. That has been my experience at this company. Because there are many different business units that we are touching, there are so many different components that we are touching. The amount of READMEs that you have to go through takes some time."
"Version control is not very easy. The packages and the integration server are on Eclipse IDE, but you can't compare the code from the IDE. For example, if you are working on Java code, doing version control and deployment for a quick comparison between the code isn't easy. Some tools or plug-ins are there, such as CrossVista, and you can also play with an SVN server where you have to place your package, and from there, you can check, but you have to do that as a separate exercise. You can't do it from the IDE or webMethods server. You can't just right-click and upload your service."
"The Software AG Designer could be more memory-efficient or CPU-efficient so that we can use it with middle-spec hardware."
"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."
"The orchestration is not as good as it should be."
"Support is expensive."
"In terms of scale, I would give it a four out of 10."
"The product's price is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"One of the reasons that we are looking for a replacement is their way of defining integration. The language of the XML structures that I use to describe the integrations are not that standard, and it's not easy to find people who are familiar with this approach."
"The micro integrator should be improved. There is room for enhancement considering alternative integration components."
"They should release upgrades more frequently."
"The setup can be difficult for those not familiar with the solution."
"You cannot include the validation of XPath."
"In my opinion, the administration model and interface, of Carbon, are lacking in terms of its features and user experience."
"The administration side is complex and could use significant improvements to enhance the solution's functionality."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) with 60 reviews while WSO2 Enterprise Integrator is ranked 7th in ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) with 18 reviews. webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0, while WSO2 Enterprise Integrator is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". On the other hand, the top reviewer of WSO2 Enterprise Integrator writes "Consolidated, reliable, and has responsive technical support". webMethods Integration Server is most compared with webMethods.io Integration, IBM Integration Bus, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks and IBM App Connect, whereas WSO2 Enterprise Integrator is most compared with Red Hat Fuse, IBM Integration Bus, Oracle Service Bus, Mule ESB and Talend Open Studio. See our WSO2 Enterprise Integrator vs. webMethods Integration Server report.
See our list of best ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) vendors.
We monitor all ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) 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.