We performed a comparison between Amazon API Gateway and Microsoft Azure API Management based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Azure is highly regarded for its stability, integration capabilities, and user-friendliness, whereas Amazon is appreciated for its flexibility and ease of use. Azure users express a desire for lower licensing fees, improved integration, and enhanced performance, while Amazon users seek better monitoring and security features. Azure's pricing is considered reasonable but could be more cost-effective, while Amazon's pricing is generally acceptable. The quality of Azure's technical support varies, while Amazon's support is generally satisfactory.
"This solution is useful for making new APIs."
"Amazon stack is easy to use in combination with other Amazon services, so it was a logical continuity."
"This solution gives you a unified way to have your API accessed."
"It is easy to set up. It is also quick to deploy."
"It is a stable solution."
"Amazon API Gateway facilitates our serverless architecture, particularly with Lambda, by allowing us to perform various tasks. For instance, Lambda functions authorize API calls, execute multiple workloads, and integrate with other services like Azure and Kubernetes. Additionally, we leverage Lambda functions behind the Amazon API Gateway to query databases, process data, and interact with different systems."
"The solution is solid, robust, and scalable."
"t is easy for integrations if it is deployed in AWS Services."
"The Application Gateway we have found to be the most useful in Microsoft Azure API Management. We have integrated the Microsoft Azure API Management with Application Gateway. Application Gateway is a type of load balancer that we are using for the high availability of our API calls."
"I like the API Management functions."
"The API management is very good."
"Azure APIM's best features are its straightforward access management (it's a single point of access for all monitoring and logging and for policy implementation) and its integration with the Azure Cloud infrastructure."
"Everything is already available and ready to operate without a lot of preparation work."
"The most valuable features of the solution are its importing and publishing."
"Allows the possibility of VPN technology to connect your gateway directly with on-prem services"
"Azure API is scalable."
"The user interface could be improved, as well as customer support and having a local customer representative in a country."
"Their support services come at a considerable cost, leaving room for improvement."
"The integration could be improved."
"API Gateway lacks some governance features that MuleSoft offers, and there are additional features that could make it even better."
"Amazon API Gateway is not as complete as Apigee and needs to be improved by adding more features to become a more robust application."
"Amazon API Gateway needs to focus on minimizing latency."
"The pricing could be improved. In cases where customers require real-time sync or real-time calling groups with IoT, the volume of data and time lag become a concern."
"I believe that there could be more features associated with analytics since it is an area where the product lacks."
"In the next release, Azure APIM should include deployment in various environments and CI/CD for deployment."
"If I compare this solution to others I have used in other phases of my life, having APIM being an Azure resource, it is easy to configure and deploy. However, this conversely reduced the flexibility. The difficulty is how do we configure it in a manner that a larger enterprise would probably want it to be. This creates a bit more complexity, working around the constraints of the resource itself. If comparing it to other solutions, it is more of a legacy design with an older approach. The various level components are still around resembling an on-premise type of design similar to other solutions, such as Apigee or Mulesoft. They are still predominantly carrying some legacy design. Which might be suited for organizations where they have a more complex network layout. APIM is easy to deploy, but on the other side of that, it is constrained to how Azure has designed it to be."
"I rate the technical support from Microsoft Azure API Management a four out of five."
"In the API you need to delete the suffix. It is annoying that you need to have a suffix. We can add a suffix at the API level, not at the operation level, and that could be improved on."
"Azure API Management could be improved with better integration with all of Microsoft's tools."
"One of the most important improvements for us would be if it supported the HTTP/3 version and new protocol over a quick connection."
"Microsoft Azure API Management could improve by having better integration with third-party solutions."
"The external policies are impossible to look at and configure."
More Microsoft Azure API Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Amazon API Gateway is ranked 3rd in API Management with 37 reviews while Microsoft Azure API Management is ranked 1st in API Management with 67 reviews. Amazon API Gateway is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Azure API Management is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Amazon API Gateway writes "Easy initial setup and highly stable solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure API Management writes "Efficiently manages and monetizes API ". Amazon API Gateway is most compared with MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Apigee, WSO2 API Manager, Kong Gateway Enterprise and Layer7 API Management, whereas Microsoft Azure API Management is most compared with Apigee, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Kong Gateway Enterprise, IBM API Connect and WSO2 API Manager. See our Amazon API Gateway vs. Microsoft Azure API Management 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.