webMethods.io Reviews

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.

We use it mainly for policy implementation and securitization when we're exposed outside the internet.

They should develop clear visibility for the onboarding. They could also improve the clustering.

We have been using this solution for three years.

it is a stable solution.

It is scalable and can adapt to third-party integration. We have more than 500 users.

I've worked with MuleSoft, and webMethods API Gateway is the most stabilized tool with a robust integration server. It's a good tool, and it has a stable messaging broker. In addition, from the infra point of view, it is always compliant and not complex. You can integrate everything with webMethods API Gateway.

The initial setup was straightforward and not complex. I rate the setup an eight out of ten.

I do not have details about the pricing. However, it is cheaper than APG.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten.

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. 

We had quite a heavy use case in terms of transactional traffic, and webMethods was quite fantastic in processing all of those workloads.

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.

On the monitoring side of things, the UI for monitoring could be improved. It's a bit cumbersome to work with.

I've been using webMethods Integration Server for about five years.

The current version is in our private cloud, and we implemented the same solution on-premises and in the cloud. So, we have implemented a hybrid solution.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We implemented it through an in-house team, and it took about four weeks.

There are no hidden costs in addition to the standard licensing fees for webMethods.

For corporate organizations, it's a very cheap or fairly priced product, but for growing or small businesses, it's quite expensive. These businesses would probably need to consider an enterprise services bus at some point. Thus, from a pricing point, it closes out non-cooperate businesses.

A slightly watered down version would be nice so that small, growing businesses could afford it.

We tried to use Oracle, and it just didn't do it for us. We explored MuleSoft, but it was a little bit expensive because of their pricing model, which is per transaction. So, it was also not a viable option for us.

You just need to find the right skills. In our country, we don't have people with qualified webMethods skills, so that's a problem for us in terms of resources. Depending on where you are from and if you don't deal with resource scarcity, webMethods could be a good option for you.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate webMethods at eight. 

I am an integrator of the solution. Our use case is for integration factory for SAP. It is mostly for SAP integration.

The solution is deployed on-premise. We are one version 7.

I am not satisfied with the solution because it takes too much effort to migrate and add new information. The migration could be easier. There's a lot of rework that needs to be done if you go to a newer version.

I have been using this solution for one year.

The solution is stable.

For supporting the solution and installing things, we have maybe 10 or so users. We have no plans to increase usage.

The solution is scalable.

Before using webMethods, I used a different cloud data migration solution for other customers. 

It's a running system, so I haven't had any experience with the installations.

The pricing is a yearly license.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

I would recommend this solution, but it is old fashioned.

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.

While I do not recall exactly which version of webMethods.io Integration we are using, I believe it to be 10 or 12. 

We use the solution in respect of eight or nine integrations that we did with the different applications.

Oracle's self-service capabilities, of which we make extensive use, is the most valuable feature. 

The products, at the moment, are new and there should perhaps be support for the older version of the protocols. While I know that they have the new versions, which are actually needed, I don't believe they have that capacity when it comes to any integration with older systems. This is because I believe us to be more advanced nowadays, with what they are doing for the roadmap of new technologies.

The solution is very stable and we have had no issues with it thus far, two years running. 

The solution is, for sure, scalable and can go to containers and dockers. I believe this to be the plan for the moment. 

I found the technical support to be very good. Although we implemented during the pandemic, us being in need of the resources from a side KSA, we did not face any difficulty, as the resources are available locally. Also, we were able to do the implementation during the peak of the pandemic. 

We had a very good implementation engineer, so the deployment was very straightforward, nothing complex. Once the input and output signatures are aligned between the systems, everything is as it should be. 

The number of people needed for maintenance will vary with the features one is using. We use features which may require two to three people. The same holds true with implementation. 

While I have yet to calculate a return on investment, I have definitely seen one. Owing to the number of users, I would say that it is huge. This is because we have used it for self-services, something which is very productive. 

In the past, we dealt with paperwork, but we now use the solution to digitize everything. We use it as a platform towards the goal of digitization, which was the whole point of the project itself. 

In the past, we had Oracle ESP and we replaced that with Software AG. Contractually, it was Oracle ESB, at which point we got the change request to switch over to Softwares AG webMethods.

I feel the solution provides a very good platform for interconnectivity between the applications, beyond what most users have, which is point-to-point connectivity. This is a good platform for doing multipoint connections and allows one to use the APIs in multiple ways for a variety of purposes and services. It also has caching features, which greatly allows one to cache the data. It has so many caching mechanisms for speeding up the data towards the users. 

This saves the user from having to go to the backend to retrieve the data, as it is available on the ESB, something which is cached and can be released to the user. This saves time going to the backend. 

I rate webMethods.io Integration as a nine out of ten.