Apache Camel vs. Elevate EDI

Elevate EDI

Overview
Product	Rating	Most Used By	Product Summary	Starting Price
Apache Camel	Score 7.5 out of 10	N/A	Apache Camel is an open source integration platform.	N/A
Elevate EDI	Score 0.0 out of 10	Small Businesses (1-50 employees)	Elevate is a fully managed Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) software application designed for small businesses that require reliable document exchange without employing an in-house EDI expert. The system is designed for suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, third-party logistics (3PL) providers, and growing brands that must satisfy retailer, marketplace, logistics, or trading partner EDI specifications without coordinating the technical complexity internally. For…	$75,050

Pricing

Apache Camel

Elevate EDI

Editions & Modules

No answers on this topic

Starting Price for 1 Trading Partner Setup: $750 one time + $50 per month
1 Trading Partner Setup + ERP Integration with API connection: $750 one time + $50 per month + $5000 one-time API Integration + $250/month
1 Trading Partner + File-based ERP Integration + GS1-128 Labels/Packing Slips Setup: $750 one time fee + $50/month + $2000 one time for File-based integration Setup + $100/month
1 Trading Partner + GS1-128 Labels/Packing Slips + ERP (API) Integration: $750 on-time fee + $50/month + $250 one time + $5000 one-time API Integration fee + $250/month

Offerings

Pricing Offerings
Apache Camel	Elevate EDI
Free Trial
No	No
Free/Freemium Version
No	No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No	No

Entry-level Setup Fee

No setup fee

$750 one-time fee

Additional Details

—

1 Trading Partner Setup starts at $750 with a one-time fee for setup and implementation + $50/month platform fee. The pricing involves: 1 Trading Partner Setup and Onboarding Trading Partner Testing & Certification Support Ongoing Compliance Updates Monitoring & Issue Resolution Partner Maintenance & Human Support

More Pricing Information

Community Pulse
	Apache Camel	Elevate EDI
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? Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous Chose Apache Camel 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 … Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous Chose Apache Camel 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, … Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous Chose Apache Camel WebSphere Message Broker - Expensive, old, hard to use, bad connectors Mulesoft - Very similar to Camel, but expensive and buggy Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous Chose Apache Camel 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. … Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous Chose Apache Camel 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). Incentivized Helpful? Akmal Muqeeth Lead Software Engineer Chose Apache Camel 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. Incentivized Helpful? SS Surjit Sen Senior Software Consultant at Randstad Chose Apache Camel 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. Incentivized Helpful? David McCann Senior Software Engineer Chose Apache Camel 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 … Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous Chose Apache Camel Jax-rs Incentivized Helpful?	Elevate EDI No answer on this topic

Best Alternatives
	Apache Camel	Elevate EDI
Small Businesses	No answers on this topic	No answers on this topic
Medium-sized Companies	Boomi Score 7.6 out of 10	Boomi Score 7.6 out of 10
Enterprises	TIBCO B2B Integration Solution Score 8.0 out of 10	TIBCO B2B Integration Solution Score 8.0 out of 10
All Alternatives	View all alternatives	View all alternatives

User Ratings
	Apache Camel	Elevate EDI
Likelihood to Recommend	7.9 (0 ratings)	- (0 ratings)

User Testimonials
	Apache Camel	Elevate EDI
Likelihood to Recommend	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. Incentivized Verified User Anonymous Read full review	No answers on this topic
Pros	open source and a great set of component feature set - always latest features available for integration works well with spring boot great community and support for any kind of workflow based on enterprise integration patterns which helps our developers achieve integration tasks with all kinds of API services Incentivized Verified User Anonymous Read full review	No answers on this topic
Cons	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. Incentivized David McCann Senior Software Engineer Read full review	No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered	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. Incentivized SS Surjit Sen Senior Software Consultant at Randstad Read full review	No answers on this topic
Return on Investment	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. Incentivized Verified User Anonymous Read full review	No answers on this topic
ScreenShots		Elevate EDI Screenshots