We performed a comparison between Cleo Integration Cloud Platform and SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about SAP, MuleSoft, IBM and others in Business-to-Business Middleware."The most valuable feature of the solution is the ease of use it provides. Cleo Integration Cloud Platform is a straightforward and simple product."
"The tool's performance doesn't get affected by transformation loads. You can write any number of rules, filtering criteria, transformations, etc."
"One of the most valuable features is the option to have all integration patterns constantly updated in one platform. That is the main strength I see in using SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS). It means I can use a very old-fashioned pattern, combined with a very modern pattern. There are no limitations in terms of combining components because all the components simply fit together."
"The ease of integration of the SEEBURGER product into SAP was pretty seamless. There wasn't any trouble, there weren't any complexities."
"It is stable and reliable. We have not had any issues."
"SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS) has been good at communicating between two applications, changing formats and using the required protocols... We can have one site communicating in an old FTP or SFTP style, or via file transfer. And with other applications, we could have API or a web service call or some other protocol used to send information."
"SEEBURGER BIS helps us automate processes. When something is manual and we have to fix the data, then it is really complicated. However, when it's automated, we trust it and the process in the system, so we don't have to go back and fix it. For example, we had a problem with a partner sending 17 files every week, but a few times a year, they wouldn't send files during a certain window. We would escalate this with them. Then, when they caught up and sent the files again, they weren't authenticated. We had to fix this situation before it became a nightmare because our financials were impacted. Also, it was really messy. So, I worked with SEEBURGER to have something automated to pick up the files within a certain window and validate them as accurate. If the files come outside of this window, then we have to approve the loading of them."
"The stability is world-class. It is as good as any of the other options out there. They have addressed hiccups quickly, professionally, and with an excellent response."
"Having the SEEBURGER consulting team perform the installation alleviates a lot of headaches and ensures a stable system."
"Currently, the solution fails to provide users with additional protocol assistance and API integrations, so the aforementioned areas need to be considered for improvement."
"API connectivity needs improvement as well as the GUI. The GUI hasn't changed that much in 10 years, but of course, that's already been updated. I would say I'm excited about the screenshots but that's about it."
"Some of the functionality for retriggering documents, where you have to step through a termination process and then retrigger it, versus just being able to restart or retrigger more easily, is a bit challenging, depending on the scenario."
"I don't think the scalability of the solution is that great because they have tied the solution to their named nodes and it does not allow scalability like some of the cloud products allow."
"They made improvements to the email error alerts that go out, for the EDI technical. Those typically go straight out to the partners. Those messages are significantly clearer and easy to read. The same messages in the front end are not nearly as clear. It's supposed to be the same error, but the message that goes out for EDI is really easy for anybody to read and understand, but you have to be really solution-savvy to understand the message in the system itself."
"We wanted to use API. We were told that in 6.52 we could use API management. Later on, we found that API management wasn't that completely integrated into the 6.52 solution, and if you wanted to have the whole API suite you might have to go to 6.7, the latest one."
"The speed of development needs improvement. If you acquire any customization, it can be a slightly slow process. I would like to see more flexibility around customizations. The time frame right now depends on the sophistication and customization, but we have to go through a process of getting them to develop, implement, and test it. This might take a couple of weeks. If it was a simpler system to customize, the time could probably be cut by half or down by even 25 percent of what it would normally take."
"I would've liked, from day one, to learn how to do my own mapping. That would have saved a lot of time and effort if that had been brought forward earlier. It's there, I just didn't know about it. Also, some tidier, easier-to-use interfaces would help."
"I would like there to be a feature that could handle the limited server."
More Cleo Integration Cloud Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
More SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cleo Integration Cloud Platform is ranked 13th in Business-to-Business Middleware with 1 review while SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite is ranked 5th in Business-to-Business Middleware with 37 reviews. Cleo Integration Cloud Platform is rated 7.0, while SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cleo Integration Cloud Platform writes "Though the tool reduces the internal hosting cost for businesses, it needs to provide more API integrations". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite writes "Gives us the flexibility to hook up to systems using any protocol out there". Cleo Integration Cloud Platform is most compared with IBM B2B Integrator and Mule Anypoint Platform, whereas SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite is most compared with SAP Cloud Platform, IBM Sterling B2B Integration Services, Mule ESB, IBM B2B Integrator and MessageWay.
See our list of best Business-to-Business Middleware vendors.
We monitor all Business-to-Business Middleware reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.