webMethods.io Reviews

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.

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.

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. 

I must be blunt. The solution is really hard to use, as the manual and documentation fail to provide proper explanations, especially to people who are first time users of webMethods, Software AG. I struggle with the installation. I sometimes think that the Integration Server is fine and that I had no problem with the API gateway, only to find myself having to redo this, as I lack a dedicated person who can instruct us on installation. I must rely on the Software AG forum. 

The installation process should be simplified for first time users and be made more user-friendly. 

I started using webMethods Integration Server around a month ago. 

I do not have the privilege of contacting technical support, so I try to make use of the information on the internet to self-learn. 

Prior to webMethods Integration Server, we worked with TIBCO BusinessWorks. This we did for another client. As some of the prospect companies already use webMethods Integration Server, we decided to undertake learning its use. 

The installation process should be improved for first time users, as it is quite difficult, and it should be made more user-friendly. 

I cannot comment on the pricing, as this is in the purview of my boss, from whom I received access to download the product. My role is solely to explore the solution's capabilities. 

There are five people, myself included, who are involved in learning about the solution for the initial project. 

A person who plans to use the solution should purchase a license or subscription, so that he will have someone to instruct him on its use. Operationally, I consider the solution to be quite good. I am referring to the PSR involving the middle integration service development. All the features seem to be there, including SSIS, SQL Server Integration Service and UI. There is a need for much scripting of it. On the development side, webMethod is quite good.

As the solution is good overall, I rate it as an eight out of ten. 

We use it for our ERP systems. It is a middleware tool that we use to connect two systems and the outside partners.

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.

Some of the things that we use cannot be done in this solution. For these things, we have to either use a Java service or a util service. There is no predefined or existing service that we can use. So, we have to work on the util service and write on top of it.

Its price can also be better. It is pretty costly because they charge us for each transmission.

I have been using this solution for four years.

There have not been any stability issues.

It is not that much scalable. We have around ten people who are using this solution. Only the integration team uses this solution. Other teams have the ERP system.

It is easy to get support. When we posted a query or some issues, they got back to us. They are responsive and knowledgeable.

It is straightforward and easy. You have the documentation, which is easy to follow.

Based on our team discussions and feedback, it is pretty costly because they charge us for each transmission.

I would rate webMethods API Portal a seven out of ten.

We use webMethods for integrating our applications.

The best part of webMethods is the out-of-box features that it provides to users, which ultimately saves on effort put into development.

All of the components are very independent but are tied together to give the business value.

The EDI is very eye-catching.

We have been having some non-technical, functional issues, which is why we're exploring other products.

The price should be reduced to make it more affordable.

I have been using webMethods for between 10 and 12 years.

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

As we use webmethods, we continue to look for and research other products that are in the market. We have not decided if we are moving away from it yet, and there is no specific timeframe for making that decision, but we will continue to research alternatives.

Overall, it's a great product.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Our primary use case is for communication between different systems and automation of business processes.

It has enabled us to integrate some systems which needed a form of translation.

The most valuable components of the solution are API management and EDI.

The Flow language mapping tool could be a little easier to use. The interface needs improvement.

The technical support served its purpose. We do not need to use it much.

We used a different solution and we switched because it was a product that was being phased out.

We considered other solutions along with webMethods Integration Server, including BizTalk and Tibco. There were other solutions but they were outside our planned budget.

I would rate this product as an 8 or a 9 out of ten.

There are actually a lot of valuable features. Terracotta is a very good component that enables us to arrange data caching and look at the solid state. Also, the API gateway is a very good component that can handle relevant caching and integrations and also load permitting. There is a message term for this. There are many components that we are currently using and all of them are very important. Also, we will use the DPM for workflow management and digital user transformation in the future.

I think they need to improve the API gateway to be able to replace F5 for example. Also, handling the certificates and their implications with other applications needs some improvement.

We need more dashboards and reporting engines that can provide detailed information for management. In short, we need better analytics.

It is stable, but it depends on the development team, not the platform itself. The platform itself is stable and has been used before by a lot of big companies and entities, but the old integration services are not related or tightly coupled with the platform itself. If you don't have good developers that can implement a good architecture or a good design, you will have issues.

It is easy to scale. We can really scale it up. We have had no issues with this.

Right now, we have an establishment of one organizer per platform but our plan is to use it as the only, single point of integration. The entire enterprise, all applications through all departments, and all IT will use the platform.

We are planning to increase the usage of the platform continuously over the next five years.

Currently, we have an incident open with them, but I think we need to give them more clarifications about it. There may be an issue with the product itself or perhaps it is from the implementation side. We couldn't reach a conclusion yet. We are supported 24 hours a day, it's full support.

Overall we are satisfied with the support because the main advantage is actually that you find someone to help you in time. Anything after is solvable; you will reach a solution. The ability to find someone dedicated is the main advantage.

I have an establishment of the IT department and the solution team but we were migrating from an old architecture and old application integration. It wasn't a platform, but rather a mix of solutions including webMethods but an older version. Now we have migrated from this older version to our new version. But we are migrating among a different integration solution.

Some parts were straightforward, but installing the platform was a little complex, especially since we use Linux instead of Windows. Opening ports, network restrictions, managing the network, and managing the users and components were all a little bit complex.

We did it on our own here, in our company. We have installed it over about four environments: development, SIT, production, and pre-production. All of this has taken about one month to finish.

It is expensive, but we reached a good agreement with the company. It is still a little bit expensive, but we got a better deal than the previous one.

My advice is to put more focus on implementation rather than on the platform itself. This is more important than the platform because finding someone that knows how to fit the components is more important than having very good components that no one knows how to use.

I would rate this as eight out of ten, because of the scope we have already implemented. We didn't face many complex issues or troubles.