We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure API Management and webMethods API Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two API Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Most of the features are valuable to me."
"The solution has overall high performance."
"I like API Management's sandbox feature. It's an environment where you can test out the API before putting it into production and connecting it to a live environment."
"The most valuable features are the ease of use and it is a platform that has self-enablement for the customers to be able to register themselves."
"The most valuable feature is the developer portal, which has source code examples in various programming languages to help developers learn the API."
"API Management does not take long to deploy."
"The integration with Azure Active Directory is a good security feature for authentication and authorization. There is multifactor authentication. You can also use all of the Azure AD features integrated with API Management."
"We're very satisfied with Azure API Management. We've had no issues with bugs, everything runs smoothly, and the connection between the cloud and the on-premise infrastructure was good."
"This solution has given us a competitive advantage because we have better automation and insight."
"I like the solution's policies, transformation, mediation, and routing features."
"The developer portal is a valuable feature."
"It's a good tool, and it has a stable messaging broker."
"Within the new version, webMethods API Gateway gives us an end-to-end lifecycle from the creation of the API up into the development, deployment, and promotion into production/live. The current end-to-end lifecycle of the API gives us enough authority and governance of the API. We know what are currently live services, what is in the testing stage of development, and what version that has been commissioned. So, the full life cycle itself gives us full authority and governance of the API."
"There were no complexities involved in the setup phase...The product is able to meet my company's API protection needs."
"The cloud version of the solution is very easy to set up."
"In the API gateway, there is a new feature that allows us to filter logs within a payload. This has been a useful feature."
"It can be quite complex, somewhat lacking in flexibility."
"One of the most important improvements for us would be if it supported the HTTP/3 version and new protocol over a quick connection."
"Sometimes when immediate support is required, it isn't available."
"The product needs to introduce a developer portal."
"I would like to see more integration with other platforms, as well as increased security."
"Technical support could be more helpful and responsive."
"The licensing fees should be cheaper."
"The developer console for external users could be improved, especially in the testing site."
"With performance, there is room for improvement in regards to if we would like to put another extra layer of security on it, such as SSL. This is affecting their performance quite significantly. They need to improve the process of managing the SSL and other things inside their solutions, so there will not be quite such a significant impact to the performance."
"There are things that could be improved with the webMethods API gateway. One thing is that it's too attached to the integration service and we'd like it to be a little bit more independent. We would like for them to separate operations so that it doesn't rely on the bulky integration server and so that it can be used everywhere."
"The configuring of the JWT token would be improved as it is a confusing process. We require more information on this part of the solution."
"The high price of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"It is an expensive solution and not very suitable for smaller businesses."
"Understanding the overall architecture is difficult."
"In terms of improvements, maybe on the API monetization side, having users able to create separate consumption plans and throttle all those consumption plans towards the run time could be better."
"They should develop clear visibility for the onboarding."
More Microsoft Azure API Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure API Management is ranked 1st in API Management with 68 reviews while webMethods API Gateway is ranked 12th in API Management with 10 reviews. Microsoft Azure API Management is rated 7.8, while webMethods API Gateway is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure API Management writes "Efficiently manages and monetizes API ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods API Gateway writes "We developed several services in the cloud using a sandbox environment for our last hackathon". Microsoft Azure API Management is most compared with Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Kong Gateway Enterprise and IBM API Connect, whereas webMethods API Gateway is most compared with Apigee, webMethods.io Integration, Kong Gateway Enterprise, webMethods Microgateway and MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager. See our Microsoft Azure API Management vs. webMethods API Gateway 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.