We performed a comparison between Layer7 API Management and MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager 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."We can create multiple orgs and set up policies and management. We can also integrate with an APM solution"
"API Management makes dealing with APIs easier. It'll help you to move ahead on your API application journey. The solution allows developers to create more advanced security policies"
"The Portal API helps us with deployments. It also helps to have a catalog of everything. The replication is also a critical feature for us. It helps to have a more robust architecture and makes our systems are highly available."
"Security is the most important parameter of the solution, for me, because whenever you are exposing your APIs to third-parties, it is critical that the data remains anonymous and that data is retained within the system, that it is not leaked. CA API Management provides good security features."
"It impresses me as a product because it never goes down. It always does what it is supposed to do."
"Tech support is fast and responsive."
"The Gateway is most important because it is our strategic front door into the company for all APIs."
"They have got a very compelling platform that enables organizations to easily develop and roll out mobile applications."
"It provides all of the robust platform-enabled features."
"MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager has the most valuable data components and can integrate APIs across multiple microservices."
"If you adopt the whole platform, you can build composable applications. This will cut your time creating new applications and updating them – once you have everything running – by up to 50%."
"Anypoint API Manager's most valuable feature is its connectors."
"The most valuable features of the solution for securing APIs stem from the tool's ability to allow users to deploy policies."
"It provides various advantages in the integration field, including support for Azure services and cloud integrations."
"When using the Mulesoft Anypoint Platform, it has a wide range of connectors that are readily available to connect with the multiple applications."
"The security features are good. It's easy to configure the end-to-end integration with existing applications."
"One area where it certainly needs to improve is the way it allocates requests, in terms of rate limiting. Also, there is no native Kafka connectivity."
"There could be more integration options included in the product."
"The cloud-native architecture of the product needs improvement."
"There are old algorithms that the tool does not support - and it shouldn't, in my opinion. But sometimes customers need old algorithms, from old use cases and old applications, migrated to the platform. At those times, there are hiccups that happen."
"One of the features that the tool provides is the ability to simply onboard new APIs to an existing security platform. We build all the policies for security upfront, and then we can add those policies pretty simply and straightforwardly to any new API that gets developed in the enterprise."
"The product needs to keep up with newer trends even though customers might not be requesting it yet."
"It would be nice if we could create APIs directly from Swagger files. We're doing that ourselves with a middle layer. But if you could integrate with open API Swagger specs, and then just create a Swagger and upload it to the gateway and it would create all my API template policy, and would apply the OAuth restrictions, the types of security restrictions I have on there, that would be pretty cool."
"I would like to be able to see the publisher role be able to be organized within organizations, so somebody within that role can only manipulate their particular policies."
"Since most components are situated in the cloud, there's one particular hosted in the cloud. This presents a considerable challenge. While all other components are implemented on-premises, this specific one isn't permitted to be hosted in the cloud as per customer requirements. Shifting this component to an on-premises environment requires a significant effort."
"The log management for this solution needs improvement."
"MuleSoft has advanced features but is slower."
"It can offer workflows, orchestration, and webhooks."
"The API gateway and API runtime are too heavy, which means that it is not suitable for microservices."
"When discussing potential enhancements overall, it primarily involves making it more user-friendly and lowering the pricing. There are several aspects that could benefit from improvement, or perhaps a few other areas to consider."
"It is not a very scalable solution."
"The dashboards in Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager could improve."
More MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
Layer7 API Management is ranked 10th in API Management with 108 reviews while MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager is ranked 4th in API Management with 47 reviews. Layer7 API Management is rated 8.4, while MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager 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 MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager writes "Responsive technical support, low tickets issued showing great stability, and limitless expansion". Layer7 API Management is most compared with Apigee, Kong Enterprise, Amazon API Gateway, Microsoft Azure API Management and IBM API Connect, whereas MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager is most compared with Microsoft Azure API Management, Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, Kong Enterprise and 3scale API Management. See our Layer7 API Management vs. MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager 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.