We performed a comparison between Kong Gateway Enterprise and webMethods.io 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."There are a few features that I like about Kong when it comes to authentication and authorization. Specifically, being able to use Kong for role-based access control (RBAC), and then further being able to integrate the RBAC mechanism with our enterprise directory, was very useful."
"Kong Enterprise has excellent plugin support."
"The most valuable features of Kong Enterprise are the out-of-the-box open source easy functionality."
"Good at intercepting traffic and modeling APIs around that."
"The route limiting feature is very valuable."
"The most valuable feature of Kong Enterprise is its capability to integrate with various security tools."
"In our buying companies' perspective, it was easier to use compared to other platforms. The markets were pretty familiar with the solutions."
"The solution's technical support is good and fast in terms of responsiveness and problem-solving skills."
"I like the tool's scalability."
"It's easy to construct new interfaces like apps and client portals."
"The connectivity that the tool provides, along with the functionalities needed for our company's business, are some of the beneficial aspects of the product."
"The solution is scalable."
"Oracle's self-service capabilities, of which we make extensive use, is the most valuable feature."
"There's hardware, software and application integration, providing hosting flexibility."
"Our use case is for integration factory for SAP. It is mostly for SAP integration."
"The tool needs improvement in UX."
"Because it is open-source, it should be less expensive than others."
"The developer portal needs to be improved."
"There should be an easier way to integrate with other solutions, even though it's the same API solution layer. Comparability will be a good improvement."
"It becomes difficult if you try to scale it up to multiple clusters."
"Kong Enterprise can improve the customization to be able to do the integration properly."
"The technical support team's response time needs to be improved."
"Kong Enterprise fails to provide live tracing of the APIs, which is possible nowadays."
"webMethods.io Integration's installation is complex. It should also improve integration and connectors."
"It is difficult to maintain."
"The product's stability is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Rules engine processes and BPM processes should be improved."
"The solution's release management feature could be better."
"I am not satisfied with the solution because it takes too much effort to migrate and add new information. The migration could be easier."
"The products, at the moment, are new and there should perhaps be support for the older version of the protocols."
Kong Gateway Enterprise is ranked 6th in API Management with 20 reviews while webMethods.io Integration is ranked 29th in API Management with 7 reviews. Kong Gateway Enterprise is rated 7.8, while webMethods.io Integration is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Kong Gateway Enterprise writes "Provides role-based access control and can be easily customized with Lua script". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods.io Integration writes "Though the tool provides great connectivity functionality, it needs to be made more stable". Kong Gateway Enterprise is most compared with Microsoft Azure API Management, WSO2 API Manager, Apache APISIX, Apigee and Layer7 API Management, whereas webMethods.io Integration is most compared with webMethods Integration Server, SAP Cloud Platform, Apigee, Microsoft Azure API Management and webMethods CloudStreams. See our Kong Gateway Enterprise vs. webMethods.io 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.