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.
Read full review Fiserv Wealth Management Network is well suited in scenarios where an organization has multiple financial services providers and would like the benefit of tying that all together and managing it from a single, unified solution. The benefit there is increased efficiency and productivity, especially when compared to the manual alternative of having managers log in to separate sponsor platforms.
Read full review Pros Camel has an easy learning curve. It is fairly well documented and there are about 5-6 books on Camel. There is a large user group and blogs devoted to all things Camel and the developers of Camel provide quick answers and have also been very quick to patch Camel, when bugs are reported. Camel integrates well with well known frameworks like Spring, and other middleware products like Apache Karaf and Servicemix. There are over 150 components for the Camel framework that help integrate with diverse software platforms. Camel is also good for creating microservices. Read full review R&D is fantastic as they have the resources Online resources to help figure things out Easy to navigate Read full review Cons didn't work well when our developers tried to transform heavy data sets Apache Camel's whole logic is based on java so team needs to have a great skill set in java if there are a handful of workflows then Apache Camel's full potential can't be realized Read full review Cost ... it's definitely not the cheapest option out there. the way pricing is itemized and a separate upcharge for each add-on gets annoying. They can probably bundle things a little better and offer a discount on the bundled products the volume of system updates and changes is nauseating at times and we have to prepare and test accordingly every time there is a scheduled update. that takes up a lot of resources; quarterly updates to products would be much easier. more responsive support and ideally more stable support engineers ... it seems like turnover is high in their support roles and that impacts customer success and MTTR. Read full review Alternatives Considered 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 lacking on the GUI tooling side compared to commercial products such as webMethods or
Azure Logic Apps .
Read full review Far superior in my opinion. More features, easier to navigate and superior customer service
Read full review 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. Read full review Speed of service is greatly improved across partners. I believe our MTTR for service requests has improved by 30-40% Standardized platform for our staff which translates to better retention and a lower training effort. Cost is the negative impact ... it goes without saying that using Fiserv is much more expensive to the manual alternative which is very human resource intensive but low cost. But that's to be expected ...we're just trading time for money. Read full review ScreenShots