We performed a comparison between Layer7 API Management and Microsoft Azure API Management 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.
"It is able to withstand the number of API calls and handle different API requirements to secure, transform, log, and track API usage patterns."
"It impresses me as a product because it never goes down. It always does what it is supposed to do."
"There are a couple aspects of performance. One is just speed and uptime, and it's stellar in that regard. The other is, how much effort is it to put it in place in the first place, and then how much effort is it to keep it operational. That's where its real strength is. I'm able to do things quickly and easily that I couldn't do before."
"The solution has numerous configuration options to increase security in communication."
"The product documentation helps the client and/or user to evolve quickly while using the tool."
"A big win for CA was the expertise of the local country support plus having support staff on site in a matter of hours, if required."
"It is a stable product."
"The most valuable features of Layer7 API Management are integration, ease of use, building APIs easily, and portal straightforward."
"I like the support they provide for the APIs more than the solution itself. First of all, documentation-wise, both Microsoft Azure and even Google Cloud are up there. But in comparison, the real-time consulting and support for APIs make Microsoft stand out a little. I also like the performance. Standard public cloud provider-built APIs are more resilient and flexible in terms of what feature you want to use and what feature you don't want to use, and they're more customizable. They are more resilient in terms of performance in that particular environment because that is the design aspect of the offering. When public clouds build APIs and deploy them after testing them on their framework for a certain amount of time, I feel there is a massive difference in the product's performance. On the interface, everything is strong."
"The UI management is very easy to use."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure API Management is monitoring. When compared with Apigee, I prefer Microsoft Azure API Management."
"API Management does not take long to deploy."
"We use Microsoft due to the stability of the company."
"The package as a whole is useful for our customers."
"This solution is very flexible, and it's very compatible with the other Azure products."
"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."
"The UI design could be improved in the next release."
"Broadcom's technical support team needs improvement."
"There is still room for improvement for the CA API Developer Portal. It is still not on par with what the competencies are."
"I understand that clients are often concerned about costs. They might be exploring other options due to the high cost associated with our current package."
"The development portal could be improved."
"The Portal is not stable."
"The only issue we have is that we have to buy an APM license separately for end-to-end monitoring."
"Could use clearer configuration when it comes to API policies."
"The API gateway can be very complex."
"The scalability of this solution could be improved. The volume which the API Management task service can handle needs to be improved. Cost wise, this solution could be optimized."
"There is always room for improvement. There should be more analytics abilities so you can know how much traffic there is. Log Analyzer isn't well integrated with this solution."
"There is room for improvement in the user interface and workflow for hosting APIs, especially third-party APIs."
"They're trying to implement versioning and trying to be able to manage different versions of your API all at the same time, but they're not doing that just quite right yet."
"The user interface needs improvement."
"It would be better if it were easier to transition to Azure from JIRA. For example, different nomenclature must be performed when you shift to Azure from JIRA. JIRA's storage, tasks, and ethics are treated differently from Azure. Here they might become functions, which is not an option in JIRA because that nomenclature difference is there. If someone has to get into the nomenclature, then there can be different tasks from clients, and here, they may be treated as functions. JIRA has sub-tasks, but sub-tasks don't exist in Azure. The nomenclature and the linking between ethics and a function and a story are different, and people may have to learn to adapt to the new nomenclature."
More Microsoft Azure API Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Layer7 API Management is ranked 10th in API Management with 109 reviews while Microsoft Azure API Management is ranked 1st in API Management with 67 reviews. Layer7 API Management is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Azure API Management is rated 7.8. 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 Microsoft Azure API Management writes "Efficiently manages and monetizes API ". Layer7 API Management is most compared with Apigee, Kong Gateway Enterprise, Amazon API Gateway, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager and IBM API Connect, whereas Microsoft Azure API Management is most compared with Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Kong Gateway Enterprise and 3scale API Management. See our Layer7 API Management 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.
