Ashutosh AggarwalVice President at a comms service provider
Tanmoy BandyopadhyayTechnology Analyst at Infosys Technologies Ltd
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"API Connect is a very good platform for the development of APIs."
"It is quite stable. We've not had any problem. It has made for a good buy because we are finding that other companies that have similar set ups go down maybe once a month."
"Our version supports containerized integration. I can write APIs, which can be moved into a testing environment without needing a forklift. It can check if APIs are compliant before moving them into production."
"It allows enterprises to expose some of their tech to outside stakeholders."
"The technical support is good. Whenever we need anything, we have our IT team work with IBM to change whatever requirement is needed."
"The gateway is the most valuable aspect of this solution."
"The centralized management: this provides a management module that can deploy and apply security policies to all APIs, including all the gateways that are deployed on-premises and on any cloud because the gateway component can run at a VMware or in a Kubernetes cluster."
"The capabilities are very good."
"This improved our organization, because it gives the management data to discuss for the next course of action and it suggests what to work on, as the next thing."
"It impresses me as a product because it never goes down. It always does what it is supposed to do."
"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 helpful to have a central API that is hosted and managed."
"We loved the portal part the most, which had monetization and showed how people were using the stuff. It is a good product as a whole and has a lot of microservices and granular features."
"The solution fills our two most important concerns in seeking an API solution by providing a reliable gateway and security options."
"The mobile access gateway (MAG) is tremendous."
"When I have used technical support they helped me a lot. Sometimes they took a long time to respond because we had very complex issues that we asked them for help with, but I think it is a very good service."
"They seem to have left out a feature for microservices and also a certification module for OIDC."
"I would like to see support for non-Java based services. We struggle a bit to be able to deploy and connect our .NET services because of things like data types. We had to map a couple of things. For one solution provider, we had to move them to .NET Core before we could use it properly. I would like to see more agnostic tool service platforms rather than moving it more towards Java or open source."
"There are issues with upgrading in the cloud version. The cloud version is extremely buggy. We prefer to use the on-premise version."
"I would like to see automation of the installation. If there could be a single-click function where you could automate everything, that would be helpful."
"Extracting the data could be improved."
"In terms of what needs improvement, some of the product documentation could be better."
"The integration of an API gateway that implements the sidecar pattern, which can be deployed in cloud applications, and expose the microservices directly in each pod, this can be more decentralized components."
"It would be helpful to have access monitoring."
"From the last version, they have added more dashboard support, but there is still a lot they need to improve. In terms of monitoring, it's almost all covered. The interface can be improved, though."
"Some users say that the API lacks some features and is lagging behind the competition although that has not been my personal experience."
"The interface is Java which is difficult to make look very nice."
"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."
"If they had different levels of support available then it would be easier to justify the costs."
"The delivery is bulky in terms of implementation. Its price could also be better. It is a very good product as compared to CA API, Google API, and WSO2 API, but its price is high. From the cloud-native perspective, some new features need to be added. It could also be made simpler to implement."
"The setup was not as straightforward as it should have been. Support should be improved."
"The architecture of the solution does not allow for flexibility in using different components for the gateway architecture."
"API Connect is quite pricey."
"I haven't seen anyone go from on-premise to the cloud. In fact, I am seeing people go from the cloud to on-premise because the costs can quickly grow on the cloud."
"It would be a good idea to bring down the pricing by at least 20 to 30 percent."
"The pricing is too expensive with IBM. Sometimes, we prefer to go with an open source or something more lightweight."
"It is expensive when compared to other products in this class. There were no extra fees for add-ons or technical support."
"It's an expensive product."
"IBM API Connect could be cheaper."
"It is quite an expensive product."
"At the time we bought the product it was a perpetual users license and there has been no need for additional licensing fees."
"There are some costs for maintenance that we are charged, but that seems fair because we get the support."
"Keep in mind the non-product licensing, e.g., if you opt not to use the embedded SQL."
"If you do a TCO of more than five years, then you will see a big jump in costs for some vendors."
"It is a pricey product, although not extremely overpriced compared to competitors in the market."
"It was very high at that time. We are a Broadcom CA partner, and we got it only for testing purposes. We didn't pay anything for it."
"This solution is a bit more expensive than competitors."
To compete successfully and thrive today, enterprises across every industry need to transform. This process is not just about incremental improvement, but about evolving core businesses to meet the demands of today’s connected world.
CA API Management accelerates this digital transformation by providing the capabilities you need to bring systems together, secure these integrations, deliver better customer experiences faster and capitalize on new opportunities.
Read more at http://www.ca.com/api
IBM API Connect is ranked 4th in API Management with 17 reviews while Layer7 API Management is ranked 7th in API Management with 9 reviews. IBM API Connect is rated 8.2, while Layer7 API Management is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM API Connect writes "Offers a good SLA, with technical support available to help, but lacks documentation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Layer7 API Management writes "Serves to standardise routing messaging services into a single API view with multiple channels". IBM API Connect is most compared with Apigee, IBM DataPower Gateway, Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager, Microsoft Azure API Management and Kong Enterprise, whereas Layer7 API Management is most compared with Apigee, Amazon API Gateway, Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager, Microsoft Azure API Management and IBM DataPower Gateway. See our IBM API Connect vs. Layer7 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.