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."Apigee provides out-of-the-box policies, so it is ready to use with minimal configuration to those policies. You can govern your API and manage the life cycle of the API completely with the Apigee tool."
"The most valuable feature of Apigee is its simplicity of deploying an API and restricting access, like rate limit, with the API."
"The ease of creating policies has been the most useful of the solution's features. It's a quick ramp-up time. It's easy for our support staff to implement the policies in the API management layer."
"The initial setup was easy - there was an onboarding document with steps that we followed."
"Apigee is a pioneer in the industry and has good features and functionalities. It is a good tool for API management and it has more advancements than all other tools in the market in certain areas."
"Apigee is a very lightweight solution."
"I have not encountered instability with the product."
"Apigee Analytics dashboard is useful to monitor transactions, error percentage, transaction latency, etc."
"It is a stable solution."
"You can click & play and add the notation in a human-readable form. Spotlight is also very good in the graphical design of APIs."
"It is quite a useful tool. It is quite good with the validation of the spec. It works quite well in terms of errors and conformity to the OpenAPI standard. It is better than Visual Studio Code in terms of editing."
"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."
"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."
"The scalability is endless."
"The tool's most valuable feature is licensing."
"The technical support could be improved because their response time is slow."
"They need to work on the cost of the solution."
"The initial setup is not straightforward, particularly for hybrid solutions."
"The caching capabilities are somewhat limited. This is more on the developer-oriented capabilities."
"As it is now, the rotation of certificates is a manual task and is something that can be improved."
"The solution’s scalability could be improved."
"Could be more user friendly."
"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."
"SwaggerHub's UI needs to be improved as it looks very old school."
"We have to use additional tools to test APIs."
"It could be more intuitive compared to one of its competitors."
"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."
"More integration and usability with the cloud microservices would be nice"
"It has limited functionality...Unfortunately, some of its features are not what we need."
"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."
Apigee is ranked 2nd in API Management with 82 reviews while SwaggerHub is ranked 16th 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, Amazon API Gateway, WSO2 API Manager and TIBCO Cloud API Management, whereas SwaggerHub is most compared with Microsoft Azure API Management, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Amazon API Gateway, RapidAPI and 3scale API Management. 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.