webMethods.io Reviews

The Software AG Designer has been great. It's very intuitive.

The development tools need to be improved. They aren't very effective for us to use as the requirement to use the Software AG Designer is quite big. Sometimes our developer doesn't have a really high-end spec laptop or desktop computer. They sometimes have trouble opening the Software AG Designer to develop something.

The Software AG Designer could be more memory-efficient or CPU-efficient so that we can use it with middle-spec hardware. That would be a great improvement for us in development.

For a new user, the initial setup is hard. 

The quality of the message queuing could be improved. In webMethods they have something called Universal Messaging. Future modules could be included in the Integration Server for different queuing. Currently, they have the basic queuing for messaging. Maybe in the future, they can have built-in different priority queuing to make it a lot faster.

I've been using the solution for about three months. It hasn't been that long just yet.

We are still in development and trial. We didn't reach the point of production where we could really gauge its reliability and therefore we didn't really know how stable it is. We're still in the early stages.

We used to use Red Hat, however, I was not fully in charge of that Red Hat project. I can't speak to any particulars. We didn't really switch. It was a requirement from the existing client to use webMethods as they already had webMethods since version 9.5 and wanted to continue with it.

The initial setup is hard for an early learner like me. It's quite difficult as we were presented with too many features and we didn't really know what was going to be installed.

For example, when we tried to install Integration servers, we had so many other features that needed to be installed, and we don't really know what that was about. By the time we try to install, we forgot to install some other items, such as JDBC for the database. At that point, we needed to install it again. Overall, it's kind of hard for us to use the initial setup.

I'm not really familiar with the commercial side. I don't really know about pricing as I'm only on the operations side.

I'm only a vendor for the customer that already has this operating.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

The API Gateway is very good.

The Integration Server is very good.

Terracotta is very useful.

There are many components that I have used.

It's very flexible and a good platform to use.

There should be better logging, or a better dashboard, to allow you to see see the logs of the services. 

Also, storing the message bodies in the database and allow you to search them would be a nice feature to have.

These features should be enhanced to facilitate the work for the developer.

I have been working with webMethods Integration Server for four years.

webMethods Integration Server is a scalable product.

It is being used only by the developers, it's not for public users.

We have three developers in our organization who are using it.

Technical support is very good.

Previously, in another company, I worked with webMethods Broker.

The price is a little bit high, especially regarding their support.

The support fees are very high and we don't need such huge support.

I think anybody who is implementing this product should learn about the balancing and the API portal that is going to be used. You should have a good developer that is able to use the platform and understands most of the capabilities that it provides.

Overall, it's a really good product.

I would rate webMethods Integration Server a nine out of ten.

We're a healthcare technology organization and that space has a great deal of integration work, so we use webMethods to help us manage and develop integration solutions for various healthcare-related needs. Those include HL7 messages, the new interop messages, the new CMS directives for data blocking, Affordable Care Act integrations, and integrations with other health systems.

Our particular product is a SaaS, multi-tenant environment that's on-prem but moving to cloud. It is used by hundreds of healthcare providers to run their businesses.

webMethods provides application integration, data integration, business-to-business communications, APIs, and microservices. We use it for all of those purposes. Having that range of features in a single platform is very important, because that means we have a single platform to learn and use. It reduces training costs. It reduces overall infrastructure costs. It even makes hiring easier because we have one set of resources we need to hire for.

In a very fast moving space—which is weird to say about healthcare, but it has certainly become that in the last few years, and especially in the last year—the ability to move very quickly and to reuse components and to connect to almost anything have become pretty paramount. The solution’s adapters and connectors provide the fastest way to build an integration. The demand curve for integrations goes up daily, so our ability to perform and build integrations is a key core competency.

Because we use most of the platform, it's hard to call out a most valuable feature, but it's probably the ease of mapping which is the single largest feature. It gives us the ability to craft anything. A lot of single-purpose technologies, like Mirth, are good for healthcare messages, but we use webMethods not only for healthcare messages but for other business-related purposes, like integrations to Salesforce or integrations to Office 365. It's multi-purpose nature is very strong.

The ease of deploy and maintenance of integrations is a key element for us. If the strength is the mapping tool and the ability to change quickly, and having all of the components that we can then alter as we need to, the result is that it allows us to react very quickly to changing business demands. For example, we have a need to send the same types of data to many different integration partners, and because we're able to tailor the delivery to each endpoint, but use one master flow, it allows great economies of scale.

I'd like to see the admin portal for managing the integration server go up a level, to have more capabilities and to have a more modern web interface.

We've been using webMethods Integration Server for four or five years.

It has been very stable.

We find that it scales very well. It's a true enterprise tool.

Our usage will increase as our business grows. It's a core part of our infrastructure.

The tool is very good and we haven't really needed to engage with support enough to know if their support for the solution’s adapters and connectors brings long-term stability.

Support has been there in the couple of times we've needed them. We have gotten a fine response. They completely meet our expectations of support for an enterprise tool. But typically, there's no need for them.

We had a couple of competing platforms: Systems Integration from IBM, and MuleSoft in the open source world. We switched to webMethods for the support from the company and the range and depth of available adapters and connectors. It gave us more capabilities.

We used an integration partner to help us stand it up, so the setup didn't really impact us. We had a total of two or three people involved on our side. We used The Normandy Group and our experience with them was very positive.

It took us about three months to have the first integration running. The implementation strategy was 

• install tool
• get it to work
• build first integration.

Those same two people in our organization are the ones involved in the day-to-day maintenance of Integration Server. We have two webMethods technical resources who are responsible for about 400 integration points or integration services.

We have seen return on investment from using it. We have to compute that every year, and the value is always greater than the cost. It's just that every year it gets harder to justify that value against the competitors. 

Keeping in mind that we haven't explored the microservices completely, which has been a key element of their innovation recently, 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'm familiar with Mirth, in the healthcare space, and IBM SI is still a very large tool. Various other IBM platforms that will do similar things. The space has gotten more crowded over the years.

The single biggest differences between webMethods and the other solutions are the range of the offering, the connectors, the stability of the system, the fact that it is an enterprise-grade system, and that you can basically do anything you need with it. 

The con is the fact that you are paying for the best-of-breed solution in the space, and the expense of it can be quite high. When you couple that with the fact that adding Software AG services increases the cost very fast, there is a real detriment to our adding additional Software AG offerings to the portfolio. The sheer expense makes us reluctant to do that. It's still justifying its cost for us, currently, but I feel that there are open source solutions that are charging up very fast. Also, finding resources who are trained in the tool is becoming increasingly hard as they become increasingly more in-demand.

It's a very valuable and a very powerful tool, but it's a tool that you have to dedicate resources to, to learn and to use well. Use an integration partner to help get it stood up and in use in your organization faster. That is something that is very valuable. And then dedicate staff to learn it. This isn't one more tool in the toolbox. This has to become someone's toolbox.

The comprehensiveness and depth of its connectors to packaged apps and custom apps is fairly low, but its ability to build what you need is very high. The value of the tool is the Lego block nature of it, so instead of being framed into set paths, we can build what we need.

I would rate it at seven out of 10. The cost-to-feature value is what brings that number down. The difficulty in finding webMethods-trained resources in North America also brings that number down. The powerful, scalable, stable nature of the offering brings that number up.

We use this enterprise integration application to support web service portals, B2B processes. I'm a consultant and we are customers of webMethods.io.

The internal services that they provide make it easy to work with. It's easy to construct new interfaces like apps, client portals, and so on because they consume the portal services that we provide.

I think rules engine processes and BPM processes should be improved. I think they must accommodate the future of the communication between systems and that is related to web services and the like. 

I've been using this product for 20 years. 

The support is at a medium level of satisfaction. 

The initial implementation was straightforward but then there are multiple requests that follow and that may be more difficult. WebMethods is used to provide services to the portal. Users don't directly use our platform; they use the platform that uses our platform and in that sense we probably have about 1,000 users. We don't have plans to increase usage for now. 

My advice is to pay attention to the human resources because it's difficult to have senior consultants in all areas, it's rare. There aren't many good, experienced consultants in the market. 

I rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

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.

We send EDIs to our customers and then to our backend system, SAP. We're basically integrating our external partners with our backend ERP system. We are customers of Built.io. 

The EDI is pretty robust with the IO. The solution they provide at Software AG is pretty good and solid. The integration with SAP is also good. Those are very solid compared to other products.

There is room for improvement because Software AG is leading to the market for the IO, for the iPass so they may have to improve a lot on the other data, like scaling and also some of the connectors to different types of cloud applications. I doubt they have all the connectors to all the applications, like other products have. They have standard connectors like SAP, Salesforce and the others; they need to have Azure, and AWS, all those connectors. In general, improved scalability and connection to different cloud applications would make a big difference. I think that the product is not completely mature and they need to do some work on that. I would like to see a reduced price for the solution. 

I've been using this solution for three years. 

The stability is pretty good.  

The scalability needs to be improved with connectors to the other applications. 

The support team is very accessible and ready to help with any issues and questions. 

The initial setup was a little complex for me because  you need to install Docker and you need to carry out numerous configurations and then send it out to the API gateway. That's one of the things they need to improve. In other solutions, it's like a click of a button, and it does everything for you. It has some limitations, so they need to improve that and make it simpler for installation. 

License costs are quite high. 

Installation can be problematic, but once you've done that, it's easy to use. It's somewhat lacking with CICD, Continuous Integration and Continuous Development. If they want to integrate a Software AG product into a Docker and deploy using Docker and CICD, those kinds of things are lacking.

I would rate this solution a seven out of 10. 

We are looking to use webMethods as part of our business process management solution. We have a mainframe and it facilitates connectivity with our database.

The designer is very helpful in developing services.

Interacting with and developing services is very fast. As long as the requirements are clear, developing service will take no longer than one or two working days.

The tool is very powerful and user-friendly. For example, I have a new team member and within one or two months, they are able to write and deploy services. Once you have a basic understanding of it, you can begin developing.

We would like to have a gateway server included, where we can control the number of requests.

There is an interface in webMethods for building a portal, but we are not using it because the price of the license is too high.

I would like to have a dashboard where I can see all of the communication between components and the configuration. As it is now, it is a lengthy search process. When a request comes in, sometimes you have to go to the administration page and then search the web after that. I need to be able to trace the flow from the port to the service to find the issue and there is no diagram to show me the parts. This is something that would be helpful.

I have been working with WebMethods for more than seven years, since 2012.

We have no complaints about stability.

Scalability has not been a problem for us.

We have not needed to contact technical support.

Our in-house team is responsible for maintenance.

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

We are considering switching to WSO2 Enterprise Integrator because the pricing is better.

My advice to anybody who is considering this product is that it is a very powerful tool that will empower the development of services. If there is a proper plan then it can be achieved within a short period of time. After a service has been developed and tested, it is moved to the staging environment. Once it is tested, we move it to production. Moving it will not take more than a few minutes.

It is definitely a product I recommend to people who have the money to pay for it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

This product is used for application integration. I have implemented this solution for many clients across the world.

The most valuable feature is stability. 

We have been experiencing problems with using Terracotta for clustering, which is something that they should improve.

Technical support is an area where they can improve.

I have been working with this product for approximately 15 years. The organization that I am currently with has been using it for about five.

This is a stable product. The Universal Messaging component had some issues with stability, although they have now been fixed. Over that time, they disappointed the customers for about two years.

We had some issues with clustering as we were trying to scale. We are using Terracotta and it gave us some problems.

The technical support team pays attention to our issues but at the same time, they don't seem to have an in-depth technical background. 

We still using IBM MQ today, although these are legacy integrations.

I have just recently started learning about MuleSoft, personally. From my research, I find that MuleSoft is better in terms of their cloud strategy.

The initial setup is not complex. I would say that it is straightforward.

The vendor is flexible with respect to pricing.

I have found that the home-grown products from this vendor always do pretty well, but when they acquire new products from third-parties, there has been some disappointment.

Overall, this is a pretty good product. In fact, my only real complaint is about support.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.