We performed a comparison between Apigee and SwaggerHub 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."The usability is one of the best aspects of the product."
"A simple platform that's easier to work with than IBM API Connect. Support for it is really good and gives it advantage over other providers."
"They capture the details of all the incoming and outgoing traffic of your APIs. Based on 300+ default dimensions you can generate beautiful and insightful reports on usage and consumption of APIs."
"Apigee gives you plenty of opportunities to set up your workspace depending on how you want to manage your APIs."
"The pricing is okay."
"It has a very efficient logging system which is easy to maintain."
"I think the most valuable features are the security features. Of course, the user access control is the same as the security. The other very important issue is the sandboxing capability of Apigee."
"Easy interface to monetize and deliver APIs with very easy integration for third-party development environments/delivery."
"The most valuable features are the collaboration between multiple teams and the control and distribution of specifications."
"I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten."
"The scalability is endless."
"It is a stable solution."
"The tool's most valuable feature is licensing."
"You can click & play and add the notation in a human-readable form. Spotlight is also very good in the graphical design of APIs."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy and not at all difficult."
"Code generation is one of the important features of SwaggerHub. We design our API, and we can generate a very rich codebase and add to it. The code generation feature is very valuable."
"When there is an update on a new version or an automatic update, you have to be present and double-check that the update is reflected in the environment with no issues."
"As it is now, the rotation of certificates is a manual task and is something that can be improved."
"The solution is pretty expensive."
"The cost of the solution is quite high."
"The caching capabilities are somewhat limited. This is more on the developer-oriented capabilities."
"The number one area this solution could be improved is by implementing support. Support is not a part of this solution."
"The company needs to better support webhooks. It used to support webhooks and their policies and they have since stopped. They had some issues in the product and they abandoned the support for them. It's not come back since."
"I would like to see better integration and some architectural improvements in future releases of the solution."
"SwaggerHub could be improved with better integration for tools."
"SwaggerHub lacks in terms of integrations. They have APIs integrated, and they also have some connectors, but they don't have integration with many of the things that we use. For example, for connecting with SVN, we had to implement external scripts. So, they should work on the integration because currently, we have to work on the integration with our DevOps, continuous delivery, or continuous deployment. It would be great if these integrations are built-in. Mainly, we would like it to integrate with SVN and Jira."
"We have to use additional tools to test APIs."
"It could be more intuitive compared to one of its competitors."
"SwaggerHub's UI needs to be improved as it looks very old school."
"More integration and usability with the cloud microservices would be nice"
"The review process should be improved. There seem to be some gaps, at least for us, for the editing part because we would like to have a full request review mechanism. They support some comments, but it is really hard to manage those comments. We would like to use the full request. Therefore, we are now looking to integrate with repositories. It has integration with Bitbucket and GitHub, but we have some internal constraints, and we need to move some of the repositories to GitHub. Our source code is on-premise in Bitbucket, and it was a bit of a problem for us to integrate. Now we are transitioning our repositories to GitHub, and hopefully, we can enable the integration. This will probably solve the problem with the review and approval. Its customization should also be improved. There are limitations around the support for the developer portal. There should be more customization options for the website that you can use as a developer portal. Currently, it has only Swagger UI with minimal customization. You cannot actually add additional pages and documentation for explaining concepts and general things. That's why we have started to look around to see what other tools are doing. They should also allow tagging on the API. We would like to add some tagging on the API to reflect certain things. Currently, any metadata that you would like to have has to be a part of the spec. You cannot do anything else. It should also have support for Open API 3.1, which was released at the beginning of the year. It would be great to be able to switch to that."
"It has limited functionality...Unfortunately, some of its features are not what we need."
Apigee is ranked 2nd in API Management with 82 reviews while SwaggerHub is ranked 15th in API Management with 10 reviews. Apigee is rated 8.2, while SwaggerHub 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 SwaggerHub writes "Simplifies API design and development for developers". Apigee is most compared with Microsoft Azure API Management, IBM API Connect, WSO2 API Manager, Amazon API Gateway and TIBCO Cloud API Management, whereas SwaggerHub is most compared with Microsoft Azure API Management, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Amazon API Gateway, RapidAPI and Stoplight. See our Apigee vs. SwaggerHub 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.