We performed a comparison between Apigee and SwaggerHub 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."Apigee is relatively easy to use for developers."
"There are just a lot of security features in general."
"The usability is one of the best aspects of the product."
"I have found the most valuable features to be tracing a proxy, and managing proxy versions and revisions via the Edge UI component."
"I use it because it's simple, it automatically updates, and It hasn't given me any issues."
"The central monitoring feature is the most valuable. It also provides security for the APIs and high availability for our use cases. Apigee is the best product in the industry in comparison to other API management solutions. It helps in fast development, which is a top point. It also supports a lot of industry standards and has excellent documentation."
"It is scalable."
"Highly scalable from any initial topology to horizontal extension"
"The scalability is endless."
"I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten."
"The tool's most valuable feature is licensing."
"Code generation is one of the important features of SwaggerHub. We design our API, and we can generate a very rich codebase and add to it. The code generation feature is very valuable."
"It is quite a useful tool. It is quite good with the validation of the spec. It works quite well in terms of errors and conformity to the OpenAPI standard. It is better than Visual Studio Code in terms of editing."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy and not at all difficult."
"It is a stable solution."
"The most valuable features are the collaboration between multiple teams and the control and distribution of specifications."
"One feature they have to invest time into is the developer portal they use."
"Google isn't enthusiastic about supporting older versions. Google is now trying to move all of its clients to X within the cloud."
"It is an expensive solution."
"We are experiencing issues with automation; the production in Apigee is quite time-consuming."
"The ability to work across different management solutions in a plug and play fashion would make it easier for faster uptake."
"The developer portal's adoption of the OpenAPI standard needs to be improved. In the latest version of the developer portal, they have adopted the OpenAPI standard. This feature, however, can be improved by supporting more characteristics of the OpenAPI standard."
"Apigee could do more to make users aware of what is available in the add-ons."
"Development IDE, especially for Architect Review."
"SwaggerHub's UI needs to be improved as it looks very old school."
"The review process should be improved. There seem to be some gaps, at least for us, for the editing part because we would like to have a full request review mechanism. They support some comments, but it is really hard to manage those comments. We would like to use the full request. Therefore, we are now looking to integrate with repositories. It has integration with Bitbucket and GitHub, but we have some internal constraints, and we need to move some of the repositories to GitHub. Our source code is on-premise in Bitbucket, and it was a bit of a problem for us to integrate. Now we are transitioning our repositories to GitHub, and hopefully, we can enable the integration. This will probably solve the problem with the review and approval. Its customization should also be improved. There are limitations around the support for the developer portal. There should be more customization options for the website that you can use as a developer portal. Currently, it has only Swagger UI with minimal customization. You cannot actually add additional pages and documentation for explaining concepts and general things. That's why we have started to look around to see what other tools are doing. They should also allow tagging on the API. We would like to add some tagging on the API to reflect certain things. Currently, any metadata that you would like to have has to be a part of the spec. You cannot do anything else. It should also have support for Open API 3.1, which was released at the beginning of the year. It would be great to be able to switch to that."
"We have to use additional tools to test APIs."
"More integration and usability with the cloud microservices would be nice"
"SwaggerHub could be improved with better integration for tools."
"SwaggerHub lacks in terms of integrations. They have APIs integrated, and they also have some connectors, but they don't have integration with many of the things that we use. For example, for connecting with SVN, we had to implement external scripts. So, they should work on the integration because currently, we have to work on the integration with our DevOps, continuous delivery, or continuous deployment. It would be great if these integrations are built-in. Mainly, we would like it to integrate with SVN and Jira."
"It could be more intuitive compared to one of its competitors."
"It has limited functionality...Unfortunately, some of its features are not what we need."
Apigee is ranked 2nd in API Management with 34 reviews while SwaggerHub is ranked 13th in API Management with 5 reviews. Apigee is rated 8.2, while SwaggerHub is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Apigee writes "Good automation and documentation with good performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SwaggerHub writes "An easy-to-use solution for the entry point of API documentation that needs to introduce some regulatory controls". Apigee is most compared with Microsoft Azure API Management, IBM API Connect, Amazon API Gateway, WSO2 API Manager and Apache APISIX, whereas SwaggerHub is most compared with Microsoft Azure API Management, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Amazon API Gateway, RapidAPI and 3scale API Management. See our Apigee vs. SwaggerHub 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.