Apigee Reviews

We have been using the solution for multiple customers. We performed a greenfield implementation for one of our customers in Canada. It is a complete enterprise platform. The version is Apigee X. We have also created an in-built developer portal. It is mostly used for external APIs, exposing APIs to partners and vendors.

One of our banking customers also uses Apigee. They use it more like a gateway and not like a full-fledged marketplace. We are also doing a lot of support work for one of our European customers. They have internal and external API exports on Apigee. We support the whole platform. We have done a lot of automation, built a lot of processes, and brought in governance.

The development is quite standard. The deployment can be completely automated because the solution exposes APIs. We have built a completely automated deployment cycle. It triggers validation, verification, deployment, testing, and promotion to the higher environment. It is completely done through Ansible Playbooks. Apigee also provides a few playbooks.

The solution is quite strong in security. It provides integrations, OAuth mechanisms, and token-based integrations. We have integrated some identity providers. We can customize the dashboard. The tool provides a lot of custom monitoring dashboards. We can track the API usage analytics. Apigee gives us a lot of parameters to track.

We can decide what to turn on or off and build the dashboards accordingly. We have built an analytics dashboard. We have built dashboards to see the usage trends, performance of the APIs, and degradation seen by API consumers. Monetization is a strong feature. We haven’t used it, though. The developer portal feature is very rich. We have also built a portal on Apigee using ReactJs. The developer portal is good.

Some customers are moving away from Apigee to other tools like Kong. The product’s licensing model is very expensive. Apigee is completely SaaS-hosted. We do not have control over the installation. API management solutions like Kong have a very good separation of concerns between the control and data planes. Apigee does not have such features.

I have been using the solution for more than six years.

I rate the tool’s stability an eight or nine out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability an eight or nine out of ten.

I rate the support a six or seven out of ten. We tried contacting support five years ago. We needed help with policies and architecture. We did not get much support. It might be because the product was still growing in Canada.

Neutral

The deployment is quite easy.

I rate the pricing a ten out of ten. The tool is extremely expensive.

We are a service provider. Our customers use Apigee. We are also partners with Google. We are SI integrators. The tool is quite stable. It has rich features. Customers prefer it if they can afford it. It is one of the best products we have. Overall, I rate the product a seven or eight out of ten.

I use Apigee as it is an API gateway.

The live tracking API feature of the product is Apigee's most valuable component.

I don't see any problems in Apigee where improvements are required.

Apigee is not a solution compatible with public clouds, making it one of its shortcomings where improvements are required.

In the future releases of Apigee, I would like it to offer more cloud compatibility features.

I have been using Apigee for four to five years.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution.

Apigee's technical support is okay. My company did not have any issues with Apigee's technical support.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

I haven't used any other solution before Apigee. My company chose to work with Apigee since it offered an enterprise edition, making it an easy-to-maintain solution with live tracking API features.

The product's initial setup phase was not difficult.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

Apigee is a very good product since my company hasn't faced too many issues with it. The tool allows users to look into the performance metrics, dashboards, and proxy performance, which are some of the positives. On the negative side, Apigee is not a cloud-compatible tool because it serves as an API gateway and a lot of systems are connected to it, which was a bottleneck for our company to deal with since we wanted to move to the cloud.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

We are utilizing Apigee as a means to host and manage our internal APIs. This involves creating an Apigee proxy that acts as a reverse proxy and hosting it on our gateway. When external customers want to use and monetize our internal APIs, we use Apigee to host them. Additionally, for internal applications that require interaction with our existing APIs, we also host them on Apigee.

The most valuable feature of the current version of Apigee, such as Apigee Edge, is that the maintenance and scalability of the service are not our responsibility. As a SaaS platform, Google takes care of it, ensuring the system is stable. Another valuable feature is the ability to customize the platform extensively. We can add JavaScript functionality to cater to any use case that is not available out of the box.

Compared to its competitors, such as Axway AMPLIFY API Management and Layer7 API Management, Apigee could benefit from having more policies to cater to various use cases. This would reduce the need for writing custom JavaScripts. If more features come straight out of the box, we can leverage them instead of writing custom code to achieve the same functionality.

I have been using Apigee for approximately two years.

The solution is stable.

Apigee is scalable. It can handle a decent amount of traffic.

We have 15 architects and developers using this solution in my organization.

The technical support team is not good. The support is not proactive. Google is a heavyweight in the industry, its support may not be as good as that of other industry partners. It is possible that Google's market dominance may have made them complacent in terms of support.

I rate the support Apigee a seven out of ten.

Neutral

The initial setup of the solution is easy. The setup is being handled by Google, you only need to request a new setup and procure a license for the solution.  Google takes care of everything else.

The current version of Apigee is not too expensive, but we are currently in talks with Google to understand their roadmap for Apigee X. However, we anticipate that with the introduction of Apigee X, the pricing will likely increase.

When comparing this solution to others, such as Axway AMPLIFY API Management Layer7 API Management, Apigee is a more stable and mature solution. Being a SaaS platform, you do not need to worry about deployment, scalability, server performance, and other related issues. However, with the upcoming release of Apigee X, there may be some constraints applied to the current version. If you choose to continue using Apigee it is a good choice.

I rate Apigee a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for all of our security. There are a few use cases for us where we use it to protect API to third parties.

The solution, overall, is quite good.

The product has a few restrictions I'd prefer weren't there.

We have trouble finding use cases. For example, when we google "data locator" we can't find a use case scenario at all. We can't find more than, approximately, five use cases, however, we need more.

We needed to do more than 20 configurations, and we weren't able to do that as the limit is 20 on the solution.

The solution tends to hide the limitations to keep selling the product. I can't blame them for doing it, however, it makes it difficult for those of us who eventually sign on.

The solution is expensive.

I've been dealing with the solution for close to three years at this point.

The stability of the solution is good. There aren't issues surrounding bugs or glitches. We don't find that it crashes or freezes. It's pretty reliable.

The scalability of the solution is okay. If a company needs to scale it, it should be able to do so.

Currently, we only have about ten people on our team that use it.

We haven't found the technical support to be that good, to be honest. We're not completely satisfied with the level of service.

We're currently using IBM Connect as well as Azure. Functionality-wise, there aren't too many differences. One is on-premises, however, therefore it's really difficult to compare both together. With IBM, you have to maintain a few more things. There are more administrative tasks.

The initial setup wasn't straightforward. It was complex due to the fact that Apigee didn't have any integrations and we had IBM APA Connect Resources.

There were many things we weren't told earlier. Once you clear certain items you can't change the name, for example. There were a few other items, like monitoring, which had a limited number of configurations which was an issue.

Deployment was fairly quick. It only took five minutes or so.

The solution is not a cheap product. Licensing can be quite expensive.

Our contract is around $2 million for three years.

We don't have a clear picture how the billing works. We have one service package of one size and yet we don't have a clear picture of the purchase or the status or if they will charge more due to earlier limits on services. The solution needs to make licensing more clear. Even if they charged us $10,000 or even $20,000 more but they were clear about the what and the why, we'd be okay with that. We'd just like to know.

We're just a customer. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

We are removing our IBM products and transition completely over to Apigee.

We have Azure's API as well. In next one year or two year, we are going to dissolve IBM API Connect as well as Azure CIM and move everything to Apigee.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I'd rate Apigee at an eight. We'd rate it higher, however, they aren't clear on their offering. We just want everything automated and easy. The cost is not the issue. The lack of information is.

I'd recommend the solution. It's a nice product and companies should go ahead with it, so long as they are okay with the pricing, as it is rather expensive. If a company is cost-consious, IBM API Connect may be better as the licensing costs are lower.

An area for improvement would be to provide more information while troubleshooting. In the next release, Apigee should allow product owners to use its tools instead of just platform engineers.

I've been using Apigee for a year.

Apigee is stable.

Apigee is scalable.

The initial setup was easy - there was an onboarding document with steps that we followed.

I would rate Apigee eight out of ten.

I'm a developer as well as an architect. We have internal clients as well as external clients. We have other teams within the enterprise that use this platform. They do development, and sometimes, we do development for them. Then we host these solutions in the same infrastructure. We also have external clients who want to integrate their applications with us.

We've been having point-to-point connections with external vendors. It has actually helped us to be able to integrate our internal applications with external vendors. It is more like a single point of entry into the enterprise. Initially, we used to have the vendor directly interact with the application owners, but now, we come in between as an integration partner for external vendors. All integration has to go through us, which makes management as well as security simpler.

We have been using Apigee mostly for proxy FGIs. We also use its security features as well as traffic control features.

In terms of the functionalities of a typical API gateway, Apigee is actually doing its job, but when it involves integration with backend applications, which some gateways have, I don't believe it has this functionality. You have to do Java or do some other low-level coding before you are able to do the integration.

Apigee has a lot of components, which means that management will be a bit difficult. It probably has ten different components, and all of these components leverage open-source utilities, such as NGINX. When those open-source vendors upgrade their utility, Apigee usually lags behind because they need to do a lot of tests and any required development in their own platform. They need to do rigorous testing to make sure that nothing breaks. Because of that, it takes them a while to upgrade whatever components have been upgraded by the open-source vendor that owns the utility. We've been chasing them for a particular upgrade for well over a year and a half, and they have not done that upgrade. It is creating a security risk for us as an enterprise, but that upgrade has not been done, even though the open-source vendor, the owner of the utility, has upgraded it a long time ago.

We've been using this solution for four years.

It has been a very stable platform. We've not really had any production issues. We've not had any issues where the production environment went down, and we were not able to use it at all. 

We've not really had so many issues. Whenever we had issues, sometimes, they responded quickly, and sometimes, it took them a while to get back to us, but it has not really affected the business because we usually have development issues or issues that don't cause an outage. 

It is not straightforward. It has multiple components, so setting it up is not straightforward, but the good thing about this is that they have automated a lot of the setup. It comes as an appliance or in RPM packages that you can install at specific locations in the operating system. So, its installation is easy because it has been automated.

Because of the multiple components it has, if you are trying to implement this in your environment, you need people who are experienced in most of these open-source utilities, such as NGINX, Drupal, OpenAL, etc. You would require someone knowledgeable in those utilities to be able to support the environment.

I would rate Apigee an eight out of ten.

The primary use case for this solution is to integrate both external applications as well as internal applications. We use some to integrate other applications, but most of them are just proxies that are for fronting the backend APIs.

We want to create one API to be used by different clients. In terms of management, even though the proxying of an API is not a lot of work, it is better to create a single API that can be reused. When the API version changes, you only have versioning for a single API, rather than in several places with the same capability.

Moving forward, if you change or update the version, the underlying functionality of the application needs to fashion the APIs correctly. This solution is created for the same capability. To prevent that, we just create the same API, and then we productize it and you are versioning a single API and not going back and versioning different APIs that do the same thing.

One of the concepts offered with this solution is called Productization. This concept allows you to bundle the APIs together and present them to clients as products, which allows you to configure the API with restricted access for different clients. An example of this would be Client A is granted access as read-only and able to do a few updates, whereas Client B would have full access to the APIs. You can configure different products for them in such a way that one of the products would have limited access, and the other would be granted full access. You are not creating another API, rather you are using the same proxy with limited access to the proxy. This is one of the features that has helped us a lot. 

We have APIs that we use internally and externally for clients outside of our network using the cloud with a SaaS solution that needs to access our API. The same API we use internally is the same API we expose externally. The level of security is different for internal applications and for external applications. To accommodate both we use the same API but add additional security features to the APIs.

The number one area this solution could be improved is by implementing support. Support is not a part of this solution.

I think that this solution is pretty stable, but when the open-source vendors upgrade their software, Apigee doesn't conform with the upgrade of the open-source vendor. They require patch releases and an upgrade for on-premises users. The component is always late.

I think it's pretty scalable. Currently, we are doing about sixteen million calls per quarter. As we are not using it on a large scale, we don't usually have latency issues whatsoever. We have a clustered environment and there is little to no downtime, even when we are running patches on the operating system. We have between twenty-five and thirty regular developers that use this platform. We have four nodes in the cluster that are serving internal traffic, and then we have another four nodes for external traffic so that way we don't really require any upgrade.

At this time there is no immediate need to scale up the environment. We have four servers with four nodes in the cluster that service the internal traffic, and we have another four gateway nodes for the external traffic.

The support is lacking. One of the main reasons it is lacking is because they have different applications bundled together. As an example, they are using Apache ZooKeeper and Drupal from different open-source vendors. We have two critical security updates that require support. A claim had been opened in May and did not receive any support.

Compared to other vendors that we deal with, I would have to rate this solution a five or less in terms of support.

We are currently looking for other alternatives because of some issues we are facing.

We believe that they do not want to continue with their on-premises version of the product, as they are not responsive to support cases.

We have MuleSoft, but we are only using their ESB, not API management. Apigee is the first solution we are using for API management.

The initial setup is not straightforward. It is very complex. They use different open-source applications in this solution. When installing this solution you have to be knowledgeable in the different applications, what the different applications do, and how they behave with each platform.

The documentation they have available is very good and available online.

Using different applications bundled together in this single product makes the maintenance and installation a challenge. 

The deployment took three months. We had many different environments including development, test, QA, and production environments. For the QA and production environments, we had both an external and an internal gateway. We did this ourselves in conjunction with the Apigee team.

Most of the maintenance is being done by two of our offshore colleagues in Chennai, India. They maintain the platform.

It's a good return on my investment. In the past, we were struggling with the way we would interface with external clients, where we would open a firewall and do many network-level configurations before we were able to open an API. Now everything goes through Apigee and we only open the first ones for Apigee. After that, all other communication goes through Apigee.

We evaluated three different products, including API management from Apigee, API management from CA, and MuleSoft. This evaluation was three years ago, and at that time the Apigee platform was more mature than other platforms.

For on-premises I would not suggest this solution. Generally speaking, the product is a good one, it is matured and the features are okay. If anyone wants to use this solution they should first consider the cloud-based version.

Because the support is lacking, we would have considered a different product. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. If the support was better, I would have given them a nine.

Our primary use case is for building an open API platform for a financial services company, and we needed something that could do the task quickly.

The most valuable features are low-code play, quick packaging, and production.

I would like to see the support improved. I think the time frame should be shorter for responses when it comes to technical support. This is not the ideal situation you want to be in when you need support.

I have been using Apigee for the past four years.

The stability is definitely close to a ten on a scale of one to ten.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the scalability around an eight. We currently have around twenty users implementing the solution on a regular basis.

When it comes to customer support I would rate them a six and a half because of the response time and prioritization. This prioritization factor is most likely due to geography.

We were using API Connect from IBM before switching to Apigee for better user readiness options.

The initial setup took a few weeks.  This was primarily because of us. It took us a while because of internal approvals. The team I was working with just was not fast enough.

When it comes to the return on investment it is pretty good. There is value for money when it comes to engaging external partners and collaborators. The initial cost is one tends to recover quickly with the right business case.

Apigee is expensive and not cost-effective. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate it an eight for the high cost. The changes individuals need to make on their side are costly.

Your team should be familiar with the product before you jump into it. There is training involved for the team, and before deploying and starting to use it, the team should get adequate training. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Apigee an eight out of ten.