We performed a comparison between Layer7 API Management and webMethods API Gateway 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."It has its own language, which make it possible to design and implement the complete flow using existing services and databases, and to create and aggregate fine-and coarse-grained APIs."
"The speed and versatility in the implementation of APIs without writing a line of code in any programming language."
"API Enhanced Portal 4.1 looks very promising. API Gateway policy manager for writing policies is excellent. It is the best in the industry for policy writing."
"The product supports more than just HTTP protocols; it also caters to JMS and FTP protocols."
"It is fairly stable for the Gateway side."
"This improved our organization, because it gives the management data to discuss for the next course of action and it suggests what to work on, as the next thing."
"I work for an information security company. CA API Management is capable of using tokens for authorization to manage access control for the APIs."
"The administration interface (Policy Manager) is very easy to understand and use."
"Within the new version, webMethods API Gateway gives us an end-to-end lifecycle from the creation of the API up into the development, deployment, and promotion into production/live. The current end-to-end lifecycle of the API gives us enough authority and governance of the API. We know what are currently live services, what is in the testing stage of development, and what version that has been commissioned. So, the full life cycle itself gives us full authority and governance of the API."
"In the API gateway, there is a new feature that allows us to filter logs within a payload. This has been a useful feature."
"The developer portal is a valuable feature."
"This solution has given us a competitive advantage because we have better automation and insight."
"What I like the most about the solution is that it comes with ready-made tools like handling security tokens and OAuth."
"It's a good tool, and it has a stable messaging broker."
"I like the solution's policies, transformation, mediation, and routing features."
"The most valuable aspect of this solution for me has been the configuration-based UI. Once you get the hang of it, it enables you to easily develop an API. In addition, it has many in-built policies that are quite handy."
"If they had different levels of support available then it would be easier to justify the costs."
"The security protocols in CA's product, for financial services, weren't as good as those in API Connect."
"On the monitoring side, we need a better way to monitor it. CA has not given a clear understanding of what external tools we can use to do this."
"One day, where we can have a microservices gateway and we will not need the classic gateway at all, that is what we want to see."
"The OTK, however, is a complex upgrade. They tend to change the schemas on the database behind it, between the versions, which can be a pain to have to migrate all of our existing clients from one database schema to the other."
"They should incorporate deeper monitoring features into the solution to make the offering more complete. Doing so would help to showcase traffic patterns and usage to better engage customers and partners proactively. It would also help with API management and capacity planning."
"The implementation of CA API Management was complex. It is a complicated solution. You have to know so much IT knowledge to do the implementation."
"The only issue we have is that we have to buy an APM license separately for end-to-end monitoring."
"With performance, there is room for improvement in regards to if we would like to put another extra layer of security on it, such as SSL. This is affecting their performance quite significantly. They need to improve the process of managing the SSL and other things inside their solutions, so there will not be quite such a significant impact to the performance."
"The high price of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"With respect to the API gateway, the runtime component, the stability after a new release is something that can be improved."
"They should develop clear visibility for the onboarding."
"Understanding the overall architecture is difficult."
"There are things that could be improved with the webMethods API gateway. One thing is that it's too attached to the integration service and we'd like it to be a little bit more independent. We would like for them to separate operations so that it doesn't rely on the bulky integration server and so that it can be used everywhere."
"The configuring of the JWT token would be improved as it is a confusing process. We require more information on this part of the solution."
"In terms of improvements, maybe on the API monetization side, having users able to create separate consumption plans and throttle all those consumption plans towards the run time could be better."
Layer7 API Management is ranked 10th in API Management with 110 reviews while webMethods API Gateway is ranked 12th in API Management with 10 reviews. Layer7 API Management is rated 8.4, while webMethods API Gateway is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Layer7 API Management writes "Has great drag-and-drop features and it requires minimal coding ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods API Gateway writes "We developed several services in the cloud using a sandbox environment for our last hackathon". Layer7 API Management is most compared with Apigee, Kong Gateway Enterprise, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Amazon API Gateway and Microsoft Azure API Management, whereas webMethods API Gateway is most compared with Apigee, webMethods.io Integration, Kong Gateway Enterprise, webMethods Microgateway and 3scale API Management. See our Layer7 API Management vs. webMethods API Gateway 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.
