We performed a comparison between IBM API Connect and IBM Cloud Pak for Integration 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."One of the most valuable features of this solution is that it protects our backend system. We are exposing services to external parties and using this solution to protect the backend system, and to have a navigation in between."
"API Connect's data gateway is one of the strongest in the market."
"The solution provides a common place for all APIs, allowing for easy sharing and exchange of information between internal and external stakeholders."
"The solution offers a pretty good SLA."
"WSRR is a powerful component for getting the endpoints."
"The functionalities on offer are very good."
"We are able to share those APIs instantly within the organization; even if we want to share it outside publicly, then we can have those capabilities."
"It is a complete all-in-one solution."
"Cloud Pak for Integration is definitely scalable. That is the most important criteria."
"The most preferable aspect would be the elimination of the command, which was a significant improvement. In the past, it was a challenge, but now we can proceed smoothly with the implementation of our policies and everything is managed through JCP. It's still among the positive aspects, and it's a valuable feature."
"The most valuable aspect of the Cloud Pak, in general, is the flexibility that you have to use the product."
"It is a stable solution."
"They seem to have left out a feature for microservices and also a certification module for OIDC."
"One thing about API Connect that could be improved is the security schemes. There are so many security schemes, and from a product perspective, IBM could improve the user experience of the configuration security scheme."
"Automation for our Domino applications could be improved."
"The monetization of the API could be improved. The pricing for the consumer is also very important to improve this solution."
"Support for this platform could still be improved. It also needs to have more levels of versatility. Its compatibility and integration with different platforms also need improvement."
"It would be helpful to have access monitoring."
"It is expensive within this class of products."
"The administration of the user interface and the technical documentation are areas of concern in the solution where improvements are required."
"Its queuing and messaging features need improvement."
"The initial setup is not easy."
"The pricing can be improved."
"Setting up Cloud Pak for Integration is relatively complex. It's not as easy because it has not yet been fully integrated. You still have some products that are still not containerized, so you still have to run them on a dedicated VM."
More IBM Cloud Pak for Integration Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM API Connect is ranked 5th in API Management with 73 reviews while IBM Cloud Pak for Integration is ranked 21st in API Management with 4 reviews. IBM API Connect is rated 8.0, while IBM Cloud Pak for Integration is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of IBM API Connect writes "Good speed and performance, but it's based on a bit dated architecture". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Cloud Pak for Integration writes "A hybrid integration platform that applies the functionality of closed-loop AI automation". IBM API Connect is most compared with IBM DataPower Gateway, Apigee, Microsoft Azure API Management, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager and WSO2 API Manager, whereas IBM Cloud Pak for Integration is most compared with IBM App Connect, IBM DataPower Gateway, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Microsoft Azure API Management and AWS Glue. See our IBM API Connect vs. IBM Cloud Pak for Integration 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.