Microsoft Azure vs. webMethods.io Integration

In terms of cloud computing, Microsoft Azure is the only comprehensive result the company offers. Regardless of how big or small an organization is, it can make use of this system. As a cyber-security professional, this is your best option for data management. A business that wants to minimize capital expenditures can use Microsoft Azure. Many Microsoft services accept it. People with little or no knowledge of cloud computing may find it impossible. It isn’t the solution for companies that don’t want to risk having only one platform and infrastructure vendor.

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

• Azure simply provides end to end life cycle. Starting from the development to automated deployment, you will find [a] bunch of options. Custom hook-points allow [integration] on-premise resources as well.
• Excellent documentation around all the services make it really easy for any novice. Overall support by [the] community and Azure Technical team is exceptional.
• BOT Services, Computer Vision services, ML frameworks provide excellent results as compare to similar services provided by other giants in the same space.
• Azure data services provide excellent support to ingest data from different sources, ETL, and consumption of data for BI purpose.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• In our experience, Azure Kubernetes Survice was difficult to set up, which is why we used Kubernetes on top of VMs.
• Azure REST API is a bit difficult to use, which made it difficult for us to automate our interactions with Azure.
• Azure's Web UI does a good job of showing metrics on individual VMs, but it would be great if there was a way to show certain metrics from multiple VMs on one dashboard. For example, hard drive usage on our database VMs.

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

Moving to Azure was and still is an organizational strategy and not simply changing vendors. Our product roadmap revolved around Azure as we are in the business of humanitarian relief and Azure and Microsoft play an important part in quickly and efficiently serving all of the world. Migration and investment in Azure should be considered as an overall strategy of an organization and communicated companywide.

Microsoft Azure's overall usability has been better than expected. Often times vendors promise the world, only to leave you with a run-down town. Not the case with our experience. From an implementation perspective, all went perfect, and from the user-facing experience we have had no technical issues, just some learning curve issues that are more about "why" than "how"

Incentivized

It has proven to be unreliable in our production environment and services become unavailable without proper notification to system administrators

Incentivized

Support is easy with all the knowledge base articles available for free on the web. Plus, if you have a preferred status you can leverage their concierge support to get rapid response. Sometimes they’ll bounce you around a lot to get you to the right person, but they are quite responsive (especially when you are paying for the service). Many of the older Microsoft skills are also transferable from old-school on-prem to Azure-based virtual interfaces.

Incentivized

As I have mentioned before the issue with my Oracle Mismatch Version issues that have put a delay on moving one of my platforms will justify my 7 rating.

As I continue to evaluate the "big three" cloud providers for our clients, I make the following distinctions, though this gap continues to close. AWS is more granular, and inherently powerful in the configuration options compared to [Microsoft] Azure. It is a "developer" platform for cloud. However, Azure PowerShell is helping close this gap. Google Cloud is the leading containerization platform, largely thanks to it building kubernetes from the ground up. Azure containerization is getting better at having the same storage/deployment options.

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

• Brings down Capex to customers.
• Some of the built-in security features of DDoS Basic protection that comes with VNET on Azure or even WAF on AGW brings huge advantages to customers.
• Hybrid benefits for those who have software assurance can save even more costs by moving to Azure.

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