We performed a comparison between Axway AMPLIFY 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."The administration tool for this solution is good."
"There's drag and drop functionality so that you do not need to have a senior expert developer to make use of the tool. You can get more of your staff trained up to be able to use it as it's not overly technical."
"In general, API governance provides a better experience for providers."
"The best feature of Axway Amplify API Management is its exceptional level of security, which is highly reassuring, coupled with its remarkable capacity to handle substantial volumes of data in impressively efficient turnaround times."
"I don't believe the Salesforce has been fully utilized yet. It gives us quick engagement."
"The most valuable features are security enforcement and throttling."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is security."
"We like the portal for documentation a lot."
"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."
"This solution has given us a competitive advantage because we have better automation and insight."
"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 cloud version of the solution is very easy to set up."
"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."
"Sometimes we find bugs where certain calls are not returning all the data we need."
"The areas for enhancement should be improving certain filters within the solution. Although they are generally functional, there are occasional problems that could be more precisely adjusted. Additionally, the solution performs well within its workload limitations, but it may not be suitable for scaling up or managing a larger volume of transactions through the gateway. To address this, it may be necessary to adopt a unique architecture rather than relying on traditional pre-packaged options."
"It would be great if they have an asset report. It's hard to get support for that."
"The portal still has room for improvement."
"Team management capabilities could be improved."
"The installation process is a bit complex and it could be a lot simpler."
"This solution does have some limitations regarding the deployment model."
"Areas of improvement include marketing and enhancing the data products area by using ETIs."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Understanding the overall architecture is difficult."
"It is an expensive solution and not very suitable for smaller businesses."
"They should develop clear visibility for the onboarding."
"With respect to the API gateway, the runtime component, the stability after a new release is something that can be improved."
Axway AMPLIFY API Management is ranked 16th in API Management with 12 reviews while webMethods API Gateway is ranked 12th in API Management with 9 reviews. Axway AMPLIFY API Management is rated 7.8, while webMethods API Gateway is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Axway AMPLIFY API Management writes "An API management solution for ESB and B2B integration between systems with security". 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". Axway AMPLIFY API Management is most compared with Apigee, Amazon API Gateway, Microsoft Azure API Management, Kong Gateway Enterprise and MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, whereas webMethods API Gateway is most compared with Apigee, webMethods.io Integration, Kong Gateway Enterprise, webMethods Microgateway and CentraSite. See our Axway AMPLIFY 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.
