We performed a comparison between IBM API Connect and webMethods API Portal based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Google, Amazon Web Services (AWS) and others in API Management."In-built policies and security functions."
"API Connect is a good product, and everything works fine. All the analytics are good, and it is easy to follow up. I like it in that sense. I'm more focused on following up on analytics by seeing how many API calls we are getting and where we see a lot of problems. I was working on that API level."
"The solution is very stable."
"The interface is very nice. It makes the solution easy to use and navigate."
"Since it runs on top of Datapower, all Datapower based custom policies can be utilized and exported to API connect but its not straightforward/simple process."
"The centralized management: this provides a management module that can deploy and apply security policies to all APIs, including all the gateways that are deployed on-premises and on any cloud because the gateway component can run at a VMware or in a Kubernetes cluster."
"It's quite flexible and easy to deploy, especially for beginners. It has almost all the features that an API gateway should have."
"It is a very scalable solution."
"It is good for communicating between the systems and for publishing and subscribing. We can easily retrieve data. It is good in terms of troubleshooting and other things."
"We have found the pricing of the solution to be fair."
"webMethods API Portal is overall very valuable. It is now a comprehensive API catalogue that serves various purposes, including API assessment and evaluation."
"We ran it on top of the Kubernetes cluster, so it wasn't a standalone service. In the worst-case scenario, API Connect couldn't stay online if all the containers went down. We had to restart all the services. We shut down all the containers automatically one by one."
"It is expensive within this class of products."
"The installation process could use improvement. I hope that in the next release, the installation process is easier."
"It's based on a little bit dated architecture. A lot of evolution has happened after that. It's an evolving field. Kong is a Kubernetes-based platform. Kong runs on Kubernetes, but all the other ones are in microservices. So, there's a lot of improvement that can be done."
"In terms of what needs improvement, some of the product documentation could be better."
"Installation is weak."
"One thing about API Connect that could be improved is the security schemes. There are so many security schemes, and from a product perspective, IBM could improve the user experience of the configuration security scheme."
"The installation was difficult with the IBM toolkit."
"Some of the things that we use cannot be done in this solution. For these things, we have to either use a Java service or a util service. There is no predefined or existing service that we can use. So, we have to work on the util service and write on top of it. Its price can also be better. It is pretty costly because they charge us for each transmission."
"The improvement needed is related to the model's position. As of now, it seems to be more of a conceptual idea rather than a widely implemented solution. For how long"
"The on-premises setup can be difficult."
IBM API Connect is ranked 5th in API Management with 73 reviews while webMethods API Portal is ranked 23rd in API Management with 3 reviews. IBM API Connect is rated 8.0, while webMethods API Portal is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of IBM API Connect writes "Good speed and performance, but it's based on a bit dated architecture". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods API Portal writes "Stable, with good technical support, but the on-premises version can be difficult to set up". IBM API Connect is most compared with IBM DataPower Gateway, Apigee, Microsoft Azure API Management, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager and Tyk, whereas webMethods API Portal is most compared with .
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.