We performed a comparison between IBM DataPower Gateway and Microsoft Azure API Management 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 solution is scalable, our customers are mostly South African banks and they handle mostly transactions with this solution."
"The product is stable...The product is scalable."
"Support for PCA and non-PCA services is valuable."
"The MPGW (Multi-Protocol Gateway) is great because it allows you to easily expose services using various protocols – web services, REST (JSON), and others. This flexibility simplifies things."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable features for our business include the ability to monitor and log data transactions and handle multiple request at an enterprise level."
"The solution is robust."
"My company has a good impression of IBM DataPower Gateway. What I like about it is that because it's an appliance, it's a turnkey solution that's very fast and out of the box. Compared to other gateways, I also like that IBM DataPower Gateway is function-rich. For example, for one of the projects, there was a need for specific transformation and security features available in IBM DataPower Gateway out of the box, so my team just needed to configure the appliance. There was no need for separate development, and I found it quite neat. Another valuable feature of IBM DataPower Gateway is that it's easy to integrate with other products."
"The solution is quite stable. We have no issues with it. there have been no crashes and we haven't experienced bugs or glitches. It's been quite reliable."
"It's very well integrated with the Azure environment."
"Ease of integration into the entire Microsoft environment."
"Microsoft Azure API Management is better because it has a DevOps integration by default."
"The product gives API gateway-related features, like throttling, which are easy to use and low-code/no-code."
"I have found this solution to be easy to configure, simple to use, and flexible."
"I like the stability and the ease of use."
"It's a very robust tool. So you see that there is a developer portal which can be used by developer or the vendors as well. And other external partners to create keys and manage their own APIs. The other thing is that they have a lot of policies there are too many options within API. So I do the difficult to tell one, but probably I would say, like, proxy sorry. The policies is one of the thing wherein you can just configure the policies and modify the behavior of the APIs."
"The product should be more adapted to the DevOps process."
"The IBM community does not have much engagement from the IT community in Saudi Arabia and developers for this solution are difficult to find."
"We are always looking for more features wherein it could be easily integrated with cloud applications. We are looking for either a cloud solution or a cloud integration option."
"They should add features to manage API integrations."
"Its support services could be better."
"The programming language is only supported in XSLT and Gateway script."
"In the next release, I would like to see the product price reduced. It should be cheaper."
"An area for improvement in IBM DataPower Gateway is its price point because it's a relatively expensive product. Sometimes, when the customer use case is just a very small subset of what's being offered in IBM DataPower Gateway, then the product can be expensive, making my company lose some of the opportunities because of the expensive pricing. A lower price point for IBM DataPower Gateway, even if that results in a less feature-rich version, would be appreciated. In terms of additional features that I'd like to see in the next release of IBM DataPower Gateway, nothing specific comes to mind because IBM constantly improves its standards and provides quarterly updates to the product, so it's quite fine."
"I could that the UI could be improved."
"Support for GraphQL could be better."
"It could be more user friendly for developers. It would be nice if developers could view things more easily."
"It can be quite complex, somewhat lacking in flexibility."
"The developer portal can be improved."
"It would be better if it were easier to transition to Azure from JIRA. For example, different nomenclature must be performed when you shift to Azure from JIRA. JIRA's storage, tasks, and ethics are treated differently from Azure. Here they might become functions, which is not an option in JIRA because that nomenclature difference is there. If someone has to get into the nomenclature, then there can be different tasks from clients, and here, they may be treated as functions. JIRA has sub-tasks, but sub-tasks don't exist in Azure. The nomenclature and the linking between ethics and a function and a story are different, and people may have to learn to adapt to the new nomenclature."
"The licensing tiers can be misleading."
"The implementation has room for improvement and can be more user-friendly."
More Microsoft Azure API Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM DataPower Gateway is ranked 7th in API Management with 27 reviews while Microsoft Azure API Management is ranked 1st in API Management with 68 reviews. IBM DataPower Gateway is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Azure API Management is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IBM DataPower Gateway writes "Security features meets compliance needs and offers MPGW (Multi-Protocol Gateway) that simplifies integration efforts ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure API Management writes "Efficiently manages and monetizes API ". IBM DataPower Gateway is most compared with IBM API Connect, Apigee, Mule ESB, IBM Integration Bus and Kong Gateway Enterprise, whereas Microsoft Azure API Management is most compared with Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Kong Gateway Enterprise and Layer7 API Management. See our IBM DataPower Gateway 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.