IBM App Connect Reviews

We use the product mainly for the integration of enterprise applications.

The platform's most valuable feature is ease of use. It has an efficient design flow. We can receive or use the resources and integrate them with other software as gateway integrations.

More connectors could be available for the product as some of the third-party software doesn't have default connectors.

We have been using IBM App Connect for three years.

The product's stability itself has been quite reliable. However, we encounter a few issues while shifting to a recognized environment. It wasn't a product issue but a platform issue. Now, a lot of issues have been resolved.

The product's scalability in a containerized environment is notably advantageous. Scaling up or down is straightforward and highly flexible, responding directly to your company's requirements and the continuous environment it operates within. We can easily add up more machines or scale down when needed. In contrast, deploying it as a VM is a slow process.

A team of five developers works on integration within the Android and Firewall systems. Tracking the number of integrations created is not straightforward, but from initial checks, around 20 integration servers are established, handling various integration points or tasks.

Most of my interactions with customer service and support were related to infrastructure queries rather than platform-specific issues. Initially, when we began using the containerization approach, some hidden issues were inherent to this new method, which required support. While I would classify the support as something other than the best, they eventually resolve issues. Quick responses were typical for simpler queries, but resolution could take anywhere from a week to two weeks for more complex or bug-related issues. For these instances, they often needed to escalate the matter to their development team for a comprehensive solution.

Neutral

The cloud platform integration's complexity depends on the prior experience working with it. For a beginner, the process would take a lot of work. It is straightforward once one gets familiar with it.

In implementing IBM App Connect, multiple options are available, each with its complexity and steps. You can set it up on a single virtual machine, which is comparatively simpler. Next, deploying it within a Kubernetes environment or as a Docker container requires additional steps for configuration but provides more flexibility. The recommended approach is deploying in OpenShift, which offers advantages but might involve a more comprehensive setup process.

Utilizing pre-existing operators created by IBM significantly simplifies the setup, reducing complexity for implementation. Once set up, developers gain convenient access, enabling them to swiftly create the instances, possibly automating the process with minimal effort. This advantage makes the Kubernetes or OpenShift environment particularly favorable, offering scalability and ease of use for App Connect instances.

Various roles handle different aspects of IBM App Connect deployment and management in organizational settings. For instance, an integration specialist or administrator may focus on IBM App Connect's configuration and management, while developers require access to the environment for development. Additionally, some organizations might have specific roles dedicated to supporting production environments, restricting access accordingly. While in certain scenarios, one person might fulfill multiple roles; larger organizations tend to separate these responsibilities among different individuals or teams to maintain control, security, and proper governance over the deployment and usage of the product.

It is easy to maintain. When IBM releases a new version or features, upgrading to these updates via the new operator is relatively straightforward. It typically involves just a few clicks to upgrade to the latest version. While there are considerations and guidelines to follow during these updates, adhering to these steps makes the process simple and manageable. Overall, with proper adherence to guidelines and instructions, the maintenance, updates, and upgrades within Kubernetes environments are simple and can be handled efficiently.

The ROI for the platform at my current customer's site predominantly revolves around long-term usage and centralizing integrations. It proves beneficial in managing critical operations like banking. By avoiding issues from scattered integration points, the time taken to resolve problems has notably decreased, contributing to operational efficiency. However, quantifying the exact financial savings, particularly regarding reduced downtime or post-implementation updates, would require detailed analysis by someone well-versed in the financial aspects.

IBM App Connect is a part of Cloud Pak. Thus, it benefits us with the ease of integration of multiple components. We can overview the integration capabilities as well.

Those using IBM App Connect should opt for a containerized solution rather than a VPN-based one. Containerization offers greater flexibility and can resolve several issues compared to a more traditional VPN setup.

I rate it an eight out of ten.

IBM App Connect is a mature product because it's been there since the mainframe time, and it's evolving.

We use IBM App Connect for the integration between the applications. You can unify the integration layer into one layer, where you manage the whole integration process. You can simplify the management, operation, and maintenance of the integration layer.

If you want to fix any of your APIs or integration connections, you don't need to do it on all tenants. You need to do it only once in one place, and it will reflect on only one channel. It works with multiple languages and protocols. So, you need to create it once and use it on any different applications that you have.

IBM needs to enhance and have a stronger offering for the event streaming part because this is the future needed for the containerization and the new integration requirement.

I have been using IBM App Connect since 2012.

The overall competence of the solution's first-tier support should be improved since the second and third-tiers are good. The solution also needs to enhance remote support, including opening remote sessions with customers and not depending only on collecting logs. They need to go to layers two and three to connect with you on your system. Having it in earlier stages can speed up solving the problems quickly.

Positive

I previously used IBM Integration Bus.

The solution's pricing isn't cheap, but you can get good discounts based on your competitive deal.

IBM has a complete bundle offering, which is very good because it gives the customer agility and flexibility in using the software. Earlier, if I bought one license, I needed to trade it or remove it to buy new software. Now, I have one license that I can exchange as per my usage, which is good.

As a new offering, they have the Red Hat OpenShift as a containerization platform. They have it embedded with the license; you get it for free. If you want to go into containerization with other products, like MuleSoft or TIBCO, you need to pay for the Red Hat OpenShift, which is an expensive platform.

IBM bundled all the integration software into one bundle, called the cloud platform integration, where with one license, you can have multiple products and pay as per your consumption. You have Cloud Platform Integration, and you can use it for multiple products like App Connect, API Connect, and MQ.

Overall, I rate IBM App Connect a nine out of ten.

We strategically decided to move all companies' data change with third parties. We control the Enterprise Service Bus platform. We also decided to change over to advanced systems to centralized management since we have several applications. We wanted a single point from which we could exchange data.

The security is very good.

It offers excellent reliability.

There is a friendly interface for configuration, and integration is made easy.

It can scale.

The solution is stable and reliable. 

We have not used the solution for too long. I haven't noted any issues with the product so far. We're still discovering new features.

When we do a version upgrade of the system, the platform is kind of complicated. It would be ideal if it was easier to manage.

Sometimes we have issues with local support.

I've been using the solution for one year or so. 

I'd rate the stability nine out of ten. We've never had issues. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution is scalable. It's containerized. I'd rate the ability to scale eight or nine out of ten in terms of ease of expansion. 

We only have administrators directly dealing with the solution, as it's for systems, not people. Administrators work with it on a daily basis. 

We have not dealt with technical support as we haven't had any issues. 

We did previously use an open-source solution. We switched to ensure business continuity.

We were lucky in that we good advice from local companies, so it was pretty easy for us to implement the product. I would rate the ease of implementation to eight out of ten. Overall, it was a good experience for us.

We're still on-premises with the ability to go hybrid. 

The main deployment of the system or integration was straightforward. It was mainly implemented within two months, however, integration is a continuous process. With every new system or new function, we need to communicate that to the system. It's not possible to just lump everything together into one project. We're always renewing or installing or changing architecture. 

We did get some advice from a local company.

You need some time to realize an ROI. 

The pricing is moderate. I'd rate the solution five out of ten. The licensing model is not bad. It's flexible. In time, you can allocate your licensing according to your different needs. 

You need some competencies as the licensing can be a bit complex.  

We're customers and end-users. We're using the latest version of the solution. 

I'd advise others to look carefully at licensing. Since it is a bit complex, they need to make sure they have the right licensing in place. You need to understand what you need and expect so that it is helpful for your company.

Over, the solution is not bad. I'd rate the product eight out of ten. The product is okay. However, there are times when we struggle with local support.

This is an integration product. Some of our financial customers, banks, and financial institutions are using IBM App Connect for integration and their services.  We work with the banking clients' transaction processes included in their APIs. We work with payment transactions, cash flow, ATM services, ATM cards, and the Internet banking side.

When using IBM stacks, IBM App Connect is suitable and integrates well with other IBM products like WebSphere.  

There needs to be an IBM App Connect web console clustering feature. 

I have been using IBM App Connect for three years.

IBM App Connect is a stable product.  However, they need to be more user friendly.

IBM App Connect is scalable. From the administration side, they need to improve the RBAC model, as well as the clustering of this product.  It will be good if we can start up the cluster, via IBM Connect Console. Some other products like MuleSoft, are providing this type of administration. MuleSoft is easy to use and user friendly.

The licensing cost for IBM App Connect is very high.

We use App Connect for integration and creating APIs. 

The integration with HR systems could be better. 

I've been using IBM App Connect for three years.

App Connect is stable

App Connect is scalable 

I don't deal with IBM support, but the administrator of this operation had some issues. They reply in one or two hours at most, but they could be better. 

I rate IBM App Connect eight out of 10. It's a powerful application for collaboration. It has many features for customization and integration. 

We use this solution to connect with MQ. We manage the solution and send the results.

It's stable to use, connect with the cloud, and to deploy.

The interface could be better.

It's stable.

It's scalable.

Technical support takes time to respond.

Neutral

Initial setup isn't easy. It's medium difficulty.

You need between two and five people for deployment.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

Our company is in Saudi Arabia. We provide end to end solutions to our customers. I'm chief solutions architect.

The solution provides a lot of good features, particularly when it comes to security. It also includes everything that's required of a VBI management solution and also as an ESB. The beauty of IBM App Connect is that it provides end-to-end middleware.

Updates are constantly delayed and that is something IBM could improve. 

I've been working with this solution for close to two years. 

App Connect is built on OpenShift which is included in the solution so if we need to scale it's much easier and is a strong feature of App Connect.

IBM has a good presence here and the remote support is good. Getting on-site support is more difficult but it's the same with all the products. 

The deployment itself is somehow complicated and not as easy as Apigee or even WSO2 which are very easy to deploy. We have another issue which is that there are not many developers or engineers working with App Connect here in Saudi Arabia. We require two or three engineers to deploy but it's not easy to find certified people. 

Licensing costs are expensive, we have a contract for three years. IBM provides good quality solutions and there's a price for that. We pay 200K every year. We haven't had any issues with our customers because they are all enterprise organizations so the cost is not an issue for them. Licensing fees include technical support. 

App Connect is similar to Apigee but is less complicated. Apigee is very good when it comes to VBI management, but it's not an ESB solution. 

Overall, I rate this solution eight out of 10.

Its reliability and the large number of endpoints for connectivity are valuable features.

I would like the ability for more than one developer to work on the same project (source control/branch merge). If the project has more than one orchestration, you should be able to have different people working on each.

I have used the product for about nine years (since before Cast Iron was acquired by IBM).

We are running the HyperV version and have had no problems with stability. Though if not designed well, the projects can definitely run out of resources when processing.

It scales well. We are considering moving to the cloud version, as only one or our endpoints is local and all the others are SaaS endpoints.

They give excellent technical support.

It is easy to set up. HyperV has OVF that you deploy to a VMware ESX Server.

IBM has gone back and forth on licensing for this product. Make sure you get the licensing that lets you have unlimited endpoints; otherwise, you will need to account for each separate endpoint in your licensing costs and adding more automation has a price impact.

We evaluated MuleSoft and Dell Boomi.

Your developers should be well-versed in XML and XSLT. These are behind everything.