We performed a comparison between Layer7 API Management and webMethods.io API 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."Initial setup is straightforward. It is simple and easy to do."
"Ease of use."
"Compared to other vendors, this product is much faster in coming up with new features, which is good."
"From a security standpoint, it works great. It is the right solution for us. It's lightweight, a software-appliance configuration which was easy to deploy and configure."
"Containerization and the monetization module are quite unique for an API tool... In addition, the development time and rollout time are pretty quick."
"Mobile app capabilities is good for building mobile apps to consume developed APIs. Also, the API Portal capabilities are very nice, up to and including the ability to do monetization. Security features are exhaustive, with several adapters to all leading identity suites."
"The scalability has been good. We haven't had to scale up a whole lot, even with all the extra transactions we're running through it. We're in the area of about 2 and 1/2 million OAuth tokens issued per hour, and it's performing fine with that."
"The security checking authentication is our primary use case for this solution."
"Clients choose webMethods.io API for its intuitive interface, promoting seamless interaction and quick communication between systems."
"The performance is good."
"I would like for the new release to allow us to speed up code generation. The integration with CICD could also be more seamless."
"The security protocols in CA's product, for financial services, weren't as good as those in API Connect."
"The development portal could be improved."
"The product needs to keep up with newer trends even though customers might not be requesting it yet."
"The Portal lacks maturity. Since the move from Portal 3.x to 4.x, a lot of features were removed. It is slowly coming back. I can see a lot of changes are done in the "background" to decouple components and make it more flexible. Those changes are just not getting to the UI side quick enough."
"One day, where we can have a microservices gateway and we will not need the classic gateway at all, that is what we want to see."
"As the number of instances increases, its complexity of installation increases if you do not use the OVA."
"We are looking for improvements related to integration. We want to see them add integration tools to the CA bundle. That would be helpful."
"A potential drawback of webMethods.io API is its adaptability to legacy systems, which can vary in compatibility."
"I would like the solution to provide bi-weekly updates."
Layer7 API Management is ranked 10th in API Management with 109 reviews while webMethods.io API is ranked 30th in API Management with 2 reviews. Layer7 API Management is rated 8.4, while webMethods.io API is rated 8.0. 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 webMethods.io API writes "Offers a strategic toolset for gradual integration advancement". Layer7 API Management is most compared with Apigee, Kong Gateway Enterprise, Amazon API Gateway, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager and Microsoft Azure API Management, whereas webMethods.io API is most compared with Apigee and MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager. See our Layer7 API Management vs. webMethods.io API 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.