We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure API Management and Apigee based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Apigee received higher ratings than Microsoft Azure API Management. Although Apigee is the more expensive solution, it comes out on top with more favorable features and good technical support.
"The usability is one of the best aspects of the product."
"The most important feature is the security capabilities and the way it integrates very quickly with other security providers. We have integrated it with Azure and it integrates quite seamlessly."
"We have been using Apigee mostly for proxy FGIs. We also use its security features as well as traffic control features."
"The ability to convert from language to language using a single tool."
"Easy interface to monetize and deliver APIs with very easy integration for third-party development environments/delivery."
"Apigee has proven to be one of the best of the breed."
"API/proxy lifecycle workflow for API providers is quite good and one of Apigee's strongest features."
"It's stable."
"What I like most about Microsoft Azure API Management is that it's flexible and user-friendly. The solution also has rich documentation and guides available, so users can configure and use it."
"Microsoft Azure API Management is 90 to 99 percent scalable. We have three instances running in parallel."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure API Management is monitoring. When compared with Apigee, I prefer Microsoft Azure API Management."
"We use Microsoft due to the stability of the company."
"The API management and the hosting of the API platform are great."
"The tool helps to manage APIs."
"Microsoft Azure API Management is better because it has a DevOps integration by default."
"The most valuable features of the solution are its importing and publishing."
"An area for improvement would be to provide more information while troubleshooting."
"The developer portal's adoption of the OpenAPI standard needs to be improved. In the latest version of the developer portal, they have adopted the OpenAPI standard. This feature, however, can be improved by supporting more characteristics of the OpenAPI standard."
"There should be an integrated continuous integration and continuous deployment approach with Apigee. Currently, for development at a more integrated level, you have set it up yourself."
"I am still struggling to understand how we can use Apigee as a hybrid system. The pricing of this solution could also be improved as there are multiple new products coming onto the market at competitive price points."
"The user interface could be better. It could be easier to navigate and more user-friendly."
"Apigee could improve by integrating with more identity providers and offering a default authentication module."
"Access restrictions can be improved."
"I see some lagging in regards to integration capacity"
"The portal where we publish the APIs could be improved. Maybe this is because we didn't configure it. It is quite easy to bypass API management because we have a lot of information shared on the portal, where we publish our APIs. I worry there is potential for a security breach in the API publishing. There needs to be more security available on terms of the way we publish them."
"From my understanding, there are some constraints around governance and service-to-service intercommunication managing priorities and our own governance."
"The implementation has room for improvement and can be more user-friendly."
"Microsoft Azure API Management could improve the documentation. The documentation feels like marketing information and not sufficient technical information. Your easiest option is to purchase services from a Microsoft partner and this is their marketing."
"The cloud deployment performance could be better."
"If I compare this solution to others I have used in other phases of my life, having APIM being an Azure resource, it is easy to configure and deploy. However, this conversely reduced the flexibility. The difficulty is how do we configure it in a manner that a larger enterprise would probably want it to be. This creates a bit more complexity, working around the constraints of the resource itself. If comparing it to other solutions, it is more of a legacy design with an older approach. The various level components are still around resembling an on-premise type of design similar to other solutions, such as Apigee or Mulesoft. They are still predominantly carrying some legacy design. Which might be suited for organizations where they have a more complex network layout. APIM is easy to deploy, but on the other side of that, it is constrained to how Azure has designed it to be."
"There is a limitation of 32 kb of data in the APIs. Having the limitation increase would be a benefit."
"Azure is our most expensive resource; it's costly."
More Microsoft Azure API Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Apigee is ranked 2nd in API Management with 82 reviews while Microsoft Azure API Management is ranked 1st in API Management with 68 reviews. Apigee is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Azure API Management is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Apigee writes "Has a robust community and outstanding performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure API Management writes "Efficiently manages and monetizes API ". Apigee is most compared with IBM API Connect, Amazon API Gateway, WSO2 API Manager, Layer7 API Management and MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, whereas Microsoft Azure API Management is most compared with Amazon API Gateway, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Kong Gateway Enterprise, IBM API Connect and WSO2 API Manager. See our Apigee vs. Microsoft Azure API Management report.
See our list of best API Management vendors.
We monitor all API Management 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.