We performed a comparison between IBM API Connect 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 API Management provides DevOps by default and has a robust marketplace where users can easily integrate with existing APIs and begin work immediately. It scales easily and integrates seamlessly with Azure cloud infrastructure. In contrast, many users feel IBM is a bit dated and is lacking cloud-focused tools.It is also more difficult to deploy.
"API Connect is a very good platform for the development of APIs."
"The most valuable feature is the security we get from this solution. I know of a bank that uses it to ensure that everything is secure. The second feature I like is the retail environment, where we actually want to be able to provide as many suppliers and consumers with APIs as possible. If you are well-trained in the writing of RESTful API's, you can actually publish an API in a matter of minutes, test it, and publish it."
"Publishers can easily identify, create, and publish APIs on the developer portal, defining plans, packages, and potentially billing rules."
"The technical support is good. Whenever we need anything, we have our IT team work with IBM to change whatever requirement is needed."
"The functionalities on offer are very good."
"The most valuable features of IBM API Connect are its performance and user-friendliness."
"It is easy to use and stable."
"Our version supports containerized integration. I can write APIs, which can be moved into a testing environment without needing a forklift. It can check if APIs are compliant before moving them into production."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure API Management is monitoring. When compared with Apigee, I prefer Microsoft Azure API Management."
"Without a doubt, it has a very robust, strong marketplace where we can directly integrate with existing APIs and begin working on those."
"The solution is reliable and very stable."
"Monitoring: It gives us a detailed overview of how clients are using the API and it allows us to see the consumption trends in real-time."
"The package as a whole is useful for our customers."
"The ability to easily connect back to Service Fabric is the most important for us."
"Allows the possibility of VPN technology to connect your gateway directly with on-prem services"
"We're pretty much using all of the monetizations features out of the API manager so we can put up a portal and have a dev portal and then a prod portal and do rate limiting."
"Firstly, the pricing model, when compared to other open sources, is high. Secondly, the availability of resources in the market, specifically the developers available in the market, is not so much."
"They seem to have left out a feature for microservices and also a certification module for OIDC."
"Debugging could be improved."
"In terms of what needs improvement, some of the product documentation could be better."
"The developer portal could be easier to customize."
"It would be helpful to have access monitoring."
"The integration of an API gateway that implements the sidecar pattern, which can be deployed in cloud applications, and expose the microservices directly in each pod, this can be more decentralized components."
"The solution could improve security and performance."
"What would make Microsoft Azure API Management better are more APIs. They keep updating their APIs, but it would be better if the solution had more APIs for the services and more integration with other platforms."
"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."
"Azure API Management could be improved with better integration with all of Microsoft's tools."
"In terms of improvement, it would be helpful if they could develop an on-premises option."
"Multi-tenant functionalities is missing from the system, especially when it comes to the developer code of features."
"The implementation has room for improvement and can be more user-friendly."
"It should be easier to integrate."
More Microsoft Azure API Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM API Connect is ranked 5th in API Management with 73 reviews while Microsoft Azure API Management is ranked 1st in API Management with 68 reviews. IBM API Connect is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Azure API Management is rated 7.8. 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 Microsoft Azure API Management writes "Efficiently manages and monetizes API ". IBM API Connect is most compared with Apigee, IBM DataPower Gateway, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Amazon API Gateway and Kong Gateway Enterprise, whereas Microsoft Azure API Management is most compared with Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Kong Gateway Enterprise and WSO2 API Manager. See our IBM API Connect 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.
