Azure Service Bus vs. webMethods.io Integration

If you need a cloud-based service bus or a simple to use queue/topic/routing/pub-sub service, then Azure Service Bus is a very good choice at a reasonable price and performance. Typically on-premise we'd use RabbitMQ because it "just works", but if you're building a "cloud-first" application, then this is the one to go with. It's especially easy to integrate with if you're already embedded in the Microsoft ecosystem.

Incentivized

We don't use webMethods.io Integration for scenarios where we need to integrate to on-premises legacy applications that have limited support for modern security controls such as OAuth 2.0 and transport encryption. Likewise, we don't use it for solutions that involve any of our systems that are controlled by safe-working processes. For those scenarios, of which we have many, we maintain on-premises webMethods Integration Server and Trading Networks instances to build and execute and support and monitor those solutions. This then requires us to hook our on-premises integration platform up to the webMethods.io Integration cloud, to ship messages between the two integration platforms. This all begs the question if a cloud solution cannot be used for all use cases or scenarios that the business has, then why add the complexity of using the cloud at all if you still need to maintain an on-premises solution to support the non-cloud appropriate scenarios.

Incentivized

• Acting as a basic queuing service it works very well.
• One of the best parts is that Azure Service Bus can work over HTTPS which helps in strict firewall situations. There is a performance hit if you choose to use HTTPS.
• The routing capabilities are quite good when using topics and subscriptions. You can apply filters using a pseudo-SQL-like language though the correlation filters are quick and easy options.
• Costs are very reasonable at low-ish volumes. If you're processing 10's of millions of messages a month... it may be a different story.

Incentivized

• Easy to use
• Priced competitively
• Supports robust and resilient integration solutions

Incentivized

• The SqlFilter could be a little easier to use, but it's not terrible.
• The performance while using HTTPS for the connection is a little slow compared to direct connections using AMQP ports.
• There is a size limit to the message - unlike RMQ for instance, Azure Service Bus caps messages to 256kb on the standard tier.

Incentivized

• Complex logic is hard to understand in simple diagrammatic user interface
• User interface too simplistic for solutions that are complicated or go against the grain
• Runtime observability could be improved

Incentivized

RabbitMQ is simple and awesome... but so is Azure Service Bus. Both accomplish the same thing but in different environments. If you're building a cloud-native application - especially one that is serverless by design - Azure Service Bus is the only real choice in Azure. It works well, it's performance, and it's reasonably priced in the Standard tier. From our testing, RMQ is more performant, but it's hard to compare service-based implementations vs RMQ installed on VMs.

Incentivized

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 Integration Server and Trading Networks on-premises. For any solutions that meet the use cases that we deem an appropriate fit for running in the cloud, we build those solutions using webMethods.io Integration. More specifically, we use webMethods.io Integration to synchronize changes in one application or system, in another application or system, by shipping data mutations via integration messaging and API calls. We also use webMethods.io Integration to integrate with external organizations. Our trading partners and supply chain partners provide APIs that we consume, and vice versa, to notify each other of business process events as they occur in the respective organizations. Please provide some detailed examples of things that webMethods.io Integration (webMethods Integration Cloud) does particularly well. Easy to usePriced competitivelySupports robust and resilient integration solutions please provide some detailed examples of areas where webMethods.io Integration (webMethods Integration Cloud) has room for improvement. These could be features that are hard to use, missing functionality, or just things that you'd like to see done differently. Complex logic is hard to understand in a simple diagrammatic user interface too simplistic for solutions that are complicated or go against the gain runtime observability could be improved please describe some specific scenarios based on your experience where webMethods.io Integration (webMethods Integration Cloud) is well suited, and/or scenarios where it is less appropriate. We don't use webMethods.io Integration for scenarios where we need to integrate to on-premises legacy applications that have limited support for modern security controls such as OAuth 2.0 and transport encryption. Likewise, we don't use it for solutions that involve any of our systems that are controlled by safe-working processes. For those scenarios, of which we have many, we maintain on-premises webMethods Integration Server and Trading Networks instances to build and execute and support and monitor those solutions. This then requires us to hook our on-premises integration platform up to the webMethods.io Integration cloud, to ship messages between the two integration platforms. This all begs the question if a cloud solution cannot be used for all use cases or scenarios that the business has, then why add the complexity of using the cloud at all if you still need to maintain an on-premises solution to support the non-cloud appropriate scenarios. What positive or negative impact (i.e. Return on Investment or ROI) has webMethods.io Integration (webMethods Integration Cloud) had on your overall business objectives?webMethods.io Integration is a cost-effective approach to integration in isolationwebMethods.io Integration as a supplement to on-premises integration is pointless and redundant and just adds complexity to the environment and additional costswebMethods.io Integration is a tough sell for organizations using Microsoft Azure integration products such as Logic AppswebMethods.io Integration has a faster time to market where the use case means standard provided adapters can be used describe how webMethods.io Integration (webMethods Integration Cloud) stacks up against them and why you selected webMethods.io Integration (webMethods Integration Cloud). For any organization which is already using Software AG products on-premises, such as webMethods Integration Server and Trading Networks, or Universal Messaging, evaluating and using webMethods.io Integration is the path of least resistance. It will be incredibly easy for your webMethods team to get up to speed on how to use webMethods.io Integration, and start developing new solutions on it. However in my opinion you should only add cloud to your integration product portfolio if you believe you can move 100% of your integration needs to the cloud. Otherwise, you will need to maintain an on-premises integration solution anyway, which means you end up with a more complex IT landscape by adding cloud to supplement on-premises integration for little benefit in terms of cost, complexity, and resourcing requirements. For organizations that are not already a Software AG shop, you should evaluate webMethods.io Integration on its merits, however, it's usually the right decision to double down on your existing products and vendors if you have no big issues with the current state. This is to say that if you are a Microsoft shop then adding Azure cloud products to your portfolio is pretty much inevitable, and avoiding the complexity of multiple clouds should also be something organizations consider.

Incentivized

• Compared to open-source free software like RMQ, Azure Service Bus does have some costs to it. But the cost is reasonable.
• Also unlike RMQ, Azure Service Bus doesn't require you to stand up any hardware - so it's very easy to use and saves time/money from that perspective.

Incentivized

• 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

Incentivized