IBM webMethods Hybrid Integration Reviews

It interfaces between applications, as well as between the cloud and our existing on-prem applications.

We primarily utilize packaged applications; we don't really have a lot of custom applications. We do have a few custom interfaces, and some vendors may have created a custom interface on their own, but we present a standard integration, a standard enterprise service bus, to connect to.

We're able to secure our front-end website away from our back-end systems using Integration Server. It acts as a go-between. That way, whether we're requesting things from our website or our IBR or our IPT, we can have multiple interfaces. They're secured in their own ways, and they don't have direct access to our back-end databases.

We're a utility company and before we got this application we would actually send out people to the meters to read them. Sometimes they had handheld devices, but sometimes they had to walk up to the meters. When we switched to AMI meters, we leveraged the ability of the solution to talk to each of the meters on a daily basis, as well as to turn a meter on and off in real time.

Additionally, we use the same application to process payments. Before this solution, we primarily had walk-in centers and a lot of manual processes for receiving payments. Very few payments were done online or via eCheck. Now we can have a whole host of payment options, as well as enable different payment vendors to connect. It has automated a lot of our manual processes.

webMethods Integration Server provides a single hybrid integration platform for all our needs. It provides reusability. We don't have to worry about taking each and every point-to-point integration. Now we are hosting a true enterprise service bus, by having a set of APIs that can really be leveraged and reused by multiple vendors and multiple connectors.

Its adapters and connectors provide the fastest way for us to build an integration. We're able to turn things around pretty quickly. I'm sure there are other faster ways that other people have done, but this meets our needs. 

It's helped us to become more modern. It's allowed us to service our customers in the ways that they want. They can now use on-the-phone payments or website payments or whatever way they want to do it.

Internally, it provides a standard way for us to be able to interface with things. Now, we don't have to have unique ways to do so and much more code and numerous ideas on how to do things. We just end up having a standard.

It provides us with ease of modifying and redeploying integrations. We have been able to do that very successfully. It just makes it easier. We were able to put in an Agile framework, which means that as requirements come up and changes are made, we're able to schedule them on a regular basis. But we were doing that for the long-term before, as well.

Its support for the latest standards make it possible to plug in modern tooling. We've used that in several places, especially for IoT integrations. The result has been reduced costs and improved customer satisfaction.

The most valuable feature is its ability to quickly spin up connections between the real-time interfaces, as well as being able to regulate how much traffic moves back and forth between applications. This is important because one of the things that we utilize it for is payments from our customers. We can have multiple customers utilizing the same set of APIs and they can make real-time payments into our system, which is really useful. We don't have to worry about people making duplicate payments or providing incorrect information. And we get that information right away.

Also, the solution has a very comprehensive and versatile set of connectors. I've been able to utilize it for multiple, different mechanisms. We do a lot of SaaS and we do have IoT devices and the solution is comprehensive in those areas. There's a standard utility protocol for talking and several of the applications we have utilize that utility. It's a standard set of APIs, and Integration Server adapted to that right away. For our website we're utilizing standard Wisdom APIs and we were able to create that. The solution is very versatile with all its capabilities and is able to do what we need to do. We even use it for Salesforce.

It provides us application integration, data integration, business-to-business communications, and APIs. We haven't used it for microservices. That range of features is very important to us. It conducts our real-time payment applications, as well as our real-time integrations between our internal applications.

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.

I have used webMethods Integration Server for about 12 years.

We haven't had any issues. Everything has been working. We like the new version, the new upgrades. It seems they keep improving upon things. We've put in high-availability and fault tolerant solutions so we have had zero downtime due to the system itself.

We haven't run into any limitations up until now. We utilize it for a lot of different things, but we haven't run into any speed issues or other problems.

We end up talking to our customers using the solution and we have over 250,000 customers. Our internal users don't really even notice it. They just see that everything is up and running and available in real time.

We haven't run into an issue requiring technical support from their side. It's usually something that we have to adapt to or modify. It's usually something internal.

We used eCheck. It was website-based for point to point integrations. We switched to Integration Server to improve speed to market and have a quicker way to turn things around. We also wanted to put in some newer interfaces that would talk to all of our customers.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. We were able to quickly utilize some templates, things that they already had, to get it up to speed.

We took our time. We developed and deployed our first product in eight months. Then, over the course of time, we were able to add more and more until we had a robust solution.

Our implementation strategy was to look at business needs to prioritize things.

In terms of maintenance, it only requires oversight, nothing too obtrusive. We've got one integration engineer dedicated to all of our integrations and we haven't had any issues yet.

webMethods provided the name of a third-party and then we reached out to them and we got them onboard. The company's name was Kellton Tech and they did a very good job. They're still with us.

We were able to realize ROI fairly quickly because we were able to reduce a lot of the manual work and point-to-point integrations. If you think of truck costs and the amount of gas expense, we don't have to worry about those on a daily basis anymore. Those alone would justify it.

It's a good deal for the money that we pay.

We went through evaluation criteria with three or four vendors and we found this one to be the best. The primary advantages of this solution were the supportability and ease of use. Also, the deployment time was reduced and development was more Java-based.

Start with proofs of concept. Create a few good proofs of concept and get it up and running and you'll be able to escalate things. Make them achievable.

The biggest lesson I have learned from using the solution is that I should have envisioned it a little bit bigger. We had a lot of point-to-point solutions that we could have considered and I think we still have a lot more to go. Also, if the back-end is not available, we should build in some logic that says, "Okay, now that I'm not getting a valid response or any response, I should be able to quickly use a default or turn off some features." We're trying to redesign and re-engineer it for that to happen.

As an overall product and solution, it has met our needs.

Segregation of deployment for the environments is the most valuable feature of the solution.

The product must improve the performance of Designer. The product must add more compatible connectors. The solution should provide more customization options.

I have been using the solution for about ten years.

I rate the solution’s stability a ten out of ten.

I rate the scalability a nine out of ten. Seven users are using the solution in our organization.

The technical support team is not so good.

Neutral

The initial setup is not difficult for me. I rate the ease of setup a seven or eight out of ten.

The deployment process took around two weeks. We need a team of seven people to deploy the solution.

I rate the pricing a nine out of ten. The product is expensive.

I am using the latest version of the solution. My advice to product users depends on their organization's scale. If an organization is a medium to large enterprise, I would recommend the solution to them. If the organization is small, it should consider other solutions in the market. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

Customers use it for B2B integration, such as exchanging EPI or EDR documents, as well as settlement documents.

With webMethods, the creation of servers and the utilization of Trading Networks facilitate B2B integration. It resolves any related issues effectively.

Perhaps in the area of Microservices, where I think Trading Networks could benefit from some improvements.

We have experience in webMethods for 20 years. We have a lot of experience using Trading Networks for B2B integration. Our customers also use Trading Networks for B2B integration.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The customer service and support team has been good.

Neutral

The setup is easy. Moreover, it is easy to maintain.

The feedback we receive indicates that the value they derive from webMethods surpasses the cost.

Trading Networks is high priced and quite expensive.

Our customers use this solution because it is well-known to them, so they choose Trading Networks when they require B2B integration.

I would definitely recommend using this solution. Overall, I would give this solution an eight out of ten.

I am using webMethods Integration Server for integrating services mainly, enterprise services bus (ESB). It is a platform for the integration of different systems.

The solution can be used in many industries and different IT systems, such as internal and external databases. We have many dedicated auditors for common projects.

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.

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

I have been using the webMethods Integration Server for approximately six years and I use it daily.

I use the latest version and sometimes older versions.

The solution can be deployed on the cloud or on-premise.

The stability of the webMethods Integration Server is good.

webMethods Integration Server is a scalable solution. There are Microsoft Windows and Linux versions available.

We have more than 10 customers using this solution.

I have used the support from webMethods Integration Server and they have been helpful. The support was able to find the solution to my problems with a fix.

The installation of the webMethods Integration Server is straightforward.

The length of time it takes for the implementation depends on the architecture and how many instances we need to install for the client. However, it typically takes a couple of days.

The implementation process starts with downloading a load that connects to the software. A server takes on the needed components, such as an integration server or universal messaging. You need to follow the integration steps.

We do the implementation of the solution.

There is a license needed to use the webMethods Integration Server.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate webMethods Integration Server an eight out of ten.

What I found most valuable in webMethods Integration Server is its strong ESB. It also has strong API modules and portals.

As webMethods Integration Server is expensive, that's its area for improvement.

I've been using webMethods Integration Server for twenty years.

webMethods Integration Server is very stable as a product.

webMethods Integration Server is a scalable product.

I haven't contacted the technical support for webMethods Integration Server yet.

The initial setup for webMethods Integration Server is straightforward. It's just a normal process, so on a scale of one to five, I'd give the setup a rating of four.

webMethods Integration Server is expensive, and there's no fixed price on it because it has a point pricing model. You can negotiate, which makes it interesting.

My company has a partnership with webMethods Integration Server.

My main advice to anyone looking to implement webMethods Integration Server is to figure out the governance target. You also want to aim for a good implementation, so you'll need to know your target.

My rating for webMethods Integration Server is seven out of ten because it could be more innovative and still needs more connectors or adapters.

Currently, we're using this solution for the integration server which helps us to integrate with the mainframe.

This solution could be improved by offering subscription based licensing.

We have been using this solution since 2012. 

This is a stable solution.

This is a scalable solution. 

I would rate the initial setup of this solution a three and a half out of five. 

I would like to have training for my team members, but the training offered is a little bit expensive.

When we started using this tool, we compared it with different tools like IBM message broker and Method. 

Some who consider this solution often avoid it due to its price. Overall, webMethods offers a good user experience and is easy to use for our company. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

We have some common services, like REST-based services. We have applications, general social services, and application services. We'll use the solution as a utility to share across the applications selected.

When an organization is, for example, a bank, it can't use an open-source solution - even though open-source solutions are providing more current features. They need to go for a vendor-based solution like this product. 

It's a well-settled, mature platform.

The stability is good.

It can scale. 

We'd like for them to open up to a more cloud-based solution that could offer more flexibility and maybe a better rules engine or more integration with rules engines. The rules should also be more centralized. 

We'd like to see more documentation. We feel like we may be missing some things and would like some documentation to lay out the entire product better. We need better use cases. They don't offer many examples to showcase their product's capabilities. 

I've used the solution for more than a decade. It's been 12 to 14 years at this point. 

The solution is very stable. They have the flow language. We've been using it since version 6.0 and we haven't had any major issues. It's pretty seamless. 

For what we need, it scales quite well. We don't have to worry about having to scale too large as our organization, a bank, is not a very big bank. That said, scalability has never been a problem. 

It's a solution that is generally used by the IT department, not everyone in the company. Maybe between five and ten people use it in total. 

We have to use technical support sometimes. We do, for example, during migrations. We incorporated a business process from webMethods. We are now changing the process in terms of where we were using the database to control the business processes. It is more or less now using the RED METHODs PPM. When changes need to happen we contact them and work with them. 

While they do help, the documentation could be better. 

Positive

The initial setup is very simple and very straightforward. 

That said, open-source solutions are easier. However, we like to have a contractor come in and take care of everything.  

Everything to be set up must be done carefully and properly. Certain changes cannot be incorporated so easily. There might be certain dependencies across certain applications. We take a pretty careful approach every time we are migrating.

We had a third-party assist us with the implementation. It makes everything very easy.

I'm a user of the application. I don't directly handle the licensing. 

I'd warn potential users that, if you get into the ESB sort solution, once you get into it,  coming out of it is very difficult. The dependencies are very high and you are running it in the middle of your architecture. It becomes something you have to budget for and allocate every year. 

I'd rate the solution a seven out of ten due to the complicated installation process. 

webMethods Integration Server is an easy-to-use solution and does not require a lot of coding.

I have been using webMethods Integration Server for approximately three and a half years.

The stability of the webMethods Integration Server is good.

I rate the scalability of webMethods Integration Server a nine out of ten.

The technical support is very good. We were using the peer services and they were helpful at supporting every aspect of webMethods Integration Server and with ARIS.

Most of my clients would like the price of the solution to be reduced.

We would advise others to at least give webMethods Integration Server a try. Based on the solution's usability and ease of use it is very good. You don't have to do a lot of coding, it is close to an out-of-the-box functioning solution. It makes life easier.

I rate webMethods Integration Server a nine out of ten.

In the API gateway, there is a new feature that allows us to filter logs within a payload. This has been a useful feature.

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. 

This is a stable solution.

This is a scalable solution. 

The initial setup was straightforward and easy. 

 The pricing of this solution is reasonable. 

This solution is flexible and can be used across a number of projects. I have used it for banking and retail. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

webMethods Trading Networks is a good solution for interacting with outside of the organization. We can integrate the solutions with multiple outside the organization. 

We can create multiple users and different types of documents. The same document type we can process to the different kinds of partners. They are reusable, we can map to the respective document type.

I have been using webMethods Trading Networks for approximately eight years.

I have found webMethods Trading Networks to be stable.

webMethods Trading Networks is scalable.

For smaller organizations, I would suggest they use the rest APIs and the API gateway approach.

Technical support is very good and user-friendly. For example, if any B2B interface fails we can easily go into the My webMethods Server, where we can see all of the transactions. There we can find the document type or the partner name or receiver's name. If they provide an invoice number, we can use that invoice number, to find the logs to investigate the issue. Additionally, we can find out the resolution after our investigation.

We had a good experience setting up webMethods Trading Networks, it was simple. We did not face any large challenges. However, My webMethod completely depends on the backend table. That table should be properly installed. If it is properly installed, there are no problems configuring My webMethod server.

webMethods Trading Networks is a bit costly compared to others solutions.

This is a good solution for EDA integrations, I would recommend it.

I rate webMethods Trading Networks a nine out of ten.