Apache Camel is an open source integration platform.
N/A
IBM webMethods
Score 8.8 out of 10
N/A
IBM® webMethods offers a hybrid, enterprise-grade integration platform as a service (iPaaS) that allows users to securely control applications, APIs, B2B and files across environments and locations.
N/A
Pricing
Apache Camel
IBM webMethods
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Apache Camel
IBM webMethods
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Apache Camel
IBM webMethods
Considered Both Products
Apache Camel
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Apache Camel
Easier to use, better routing system, but perhaps too basic dependant on business needs?
If you are looking for a Java-based open source low cost equivalent to webMethods or Azure Logic Apps, Apache Camel is an excellent choice as it is mature and widely deployed, and included in many vendored Java application servers too such as Redhat JBoss EAP. Apache Camel is …
working with Apache's TomCat server, our developer found it most easy given the UI of Camel to perform integration and data processing tasks. when compared to the other two softwares they felt the need to learn new tools outside of Apache family can be avoided and with kafka, …
We did a comparison of the two products with an example application that tested about 10 distinct EIP pattern. We wrote Camel in XML and Java DSL and SI in XML. This was about 3 years ago. At the time, I found the threading model in SI to be more intuitive and Camel's seda. …
Akka or Spring Integration/ XD are alternatives to Apache Camel and very good frameworks on their own (especially Akka which provides a single threaded illusion).
We chose Apache Camel because it was lightweight, easy to get started with and because it had a groovy DSL since we were a grails shop when we started using it.
Apache Camel has been the integration framework of choice, but I was not the person to make the decision to use it. Compared to other competing products like Tibco Business Works, etc., it is free and open source and its licensing policy is acceptable to the management of Cox.
Esper is only similar in that they both are involved in complex even processing, however Esper's aim is a little more complex and specialized. In general however I found Apache Camel to be much easier to understand, implement and debug, whereas Esper's DSL can get very …
IBM webMethods lags in terms of iPass offering as compared to mulesoft and dell Boomi. In terms of api management Apigee is much better than webMethods.
IBM webMethods is far superior when compared to competition like Microsoft Azure. In functionality and capabilities. Better visibility, uptime, efficiency, etc.
webMethods does better for end to end integrations whereas Azure is more focused on APIs. We selected webMethods because we felt their integrations, especially to mainframe environments, were much better than the others. IBM has been in this space for a long time and know it …
Oracle Integration Cloud vs IBM webMethods, hands down IBM webMethods is way better. Lots of features and ease of doing webMethods and super stable stack.
webMethods.io IntegrationDescriptionWe uses webMethods.io Integration to solve some of our application to applications and business to business integration needs. It is the Integration Platform as a Service solution that we use in a mix with our continued use of webMethods …
IBM webMethods was selected vs WSo2 for the reachness of the correspondign features regarding Mulesoft, the flexibility of IBM webMethods compared to the other platform, in relation to the existing architectural landscape was preferred
The two branches of the IBM integration portfolio are coming together nicely, and it's more a question of fully mapping the specific implementation requirements to the respective platform of choice when selecting between IBM Cloud Pak for Integration and IBM webMethods. …
I have seen that other products have different UI to address various business problems like messaging, EDA, MFT. IBM webMethods has unified platform and can also support hybrid Integration. I think it is all rounded iPaaS tool with ease of development and ease of operation. The …
The webMethods platform ranks higher in our ranking because it has more features and has proven itself in many CAC 40 companies in particular.The key elements are robustness, ease of use, a clear business model, and a wide range of features covering all types of enterprise …
IBM webMethods combines all the essential functions for information system integration in its platform. All products are interconnected to facilitate implementation (ESB, API, BPM, message bus). All tools are easy to use.
Message brokering across different systems, with transactionality and the ability to have fine tuned control over what happens using Java (or other languages), instead of a heavy, proprietary languages. One situation that it doesn't fit very well (as far as I have experienced) is when your workflow requires significant data mapping. While possible when using Java tooling, some other visual data mapping tools in other integration frameworks are easier to work with.
With its world-class proven technology, the IBM webMethods products are best suited for solving integration needs, including application connectivity, data aggregation, and data synchronization. The business use cases expand across Healthcare, Aviation, Banking, Insurance, etc., and many other mission-critical systems. Though I feel there is room for improvement where webMethods products are utilized in a containerized platform, especially with the API Management suite of products.
Some of the documentation is a little sparse. In particular, its TCP-based routes use an underlying Netty server, and the interactions between Netty's decoder capabilities and Apache Camel's routing/handler capabilities can be a little muddy at times. In general it is clear which routes and endpoints are the more frequently used and which haven't been given as much attention.
The webMethods platform is a fantastic tool for modernizing information systems. It's easy to use and delivers rapid results.The platform is focused on innovation and is accelerating its improvement with the acquisition by IBM.
The webMethods product has a very user-friendly and easy-to-use interface.A weak point is the My webMethods Server portal (administration and monitoring portal for the on-premise platform). This weakness has been addressed thanks to the control plane on the hybrid version of the product. This version should be highlighted and used to ensure a very fluid and functional interface.
The webMethods platform is very stable and does not cause incidents: if it is well configured and tailored at the base. Infrastructure incidents represent 20% of incidents (full disk, memory peaks, etc.) 80% of incidents come from the implementation of the code in the platform. If a code is not optimized and a high volume is observed in production, this can cause incidents. Similarly, if all error cases or conditions are not handled in the code, this can cause errors. Finally, there can be common errors if the applications connected to the platform do not return quality data or are unavailable.
The webMethods platform is designed to handle a high volume of small messages. It's a tool for continuous processing.The incidents I've seen involving application performance declines are caused by: - Code optimization issues - File size issues or fragmentation of the transmitted file - Misuse of the platform (batch processing) - Monitoring data was not purged, and the user was working with millions of data points
In the majority of the tickets I've created, support has been very responsive and provided the right solutions or solutions.Resolving a ticket also depends on the information provided by the creator. It's important to provide the technical context and information about the environment, as well as information to help the support team reproduce the incident.
We received in-person training from the webMethods team. We received standard training from the vendor and custom training on specific security topics.The training sessions went well but remained very standard and did not adapt to the client's specific business. In-person training is more suitable for rapid skill development. It is necessary to practice for a few weeks to ensure familiarity with the tool.
I found clear and easy-to-follow training with realistic use cases for quick understanding and a 360° view of the features. The lesson format allows you to progress and learn by breaking down the allocated time.The technical courses are described step by step, allowing you to quickly get to grips with the products
When implementing webMethods, it's essential to have the right support and guidance.It's important to map out the interactions, document them, prepare test cases, and implement them while making maximum use of the product's native features.Additional tools must also be planned to automate deployments, visualize logs, and monitor the platform.
Apache Camel has been the integration framework of choice, but I was not the person to make the decision to use it. Compared to other competing products like Tibco Business Works, etc., it is free and open source and its licensing policy is acceptable to the management of Cox.
The two branches of the IBM integration portfolio are coming together nicely, and it's more a question of fully mapping the specific implementation requirements to the respective platform of choice when selecting between IBM Cloud Pak for Integration and IBM webMethods. Pricing and licensing model, cloud strategy, and level of distributed responsibilities and ownership of integration in the organisation can be deciding factors.
Very fast time to market in that so many components are available to use immediately.
Error handling mechanisms and patterns of practice are robust and easy to use which in turn has made our application more robust from the start, so fewer bugs.
However, testing and debugging routes is more challenging than working is standard Java so that takes more time (less time than writing the components from scratch).
Most people don't know Camel coming in and many junior developers find it overwhelming and are not enthusiastic to learn it. So finding people that want to develop/maintain it is a challenge.
webMethods.io Integration is a cost effective approach to integration in isolation
webMethods.io Integration as a supplement to on-premises integration is pointless and redundant and just adds complexity to the environment and additional costs
webMethods.io Integration is a tough sell for organizations using Microsoft Azure integration products such as Logic Apps
webMethods.io Integration has a faster time to market where the use case means standard provided adapters can be used
