We performed a comparison between Layer7 API Management and MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager 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 allows us to keep clear traceability of the changes made in each of our APIs."
"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."
"The product supports more than just HTTP protocols; it also caters to JMS and FTP protocols."
"We can get more visibility into our data."
"It is flexible in how it creates custom policies and uses builds with impressive methods."
"Every API that we get from external or from internal goes through this layer first, and it should not be a bottleneck. That was the problem we had before. Now it's no longer a bottleneck. It's more like a throughput, this process is less than 10 milliseconds for any particular API."
"It is helpful to have a central API that is hosted and managed."
"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."
"It can create high-cost solutions, allowing for a great deal of customization to make it well-suited for specific needs."
"Both the cloud and on-premises options are available. Customers can leverage the MuleSoft Cloud platform to deploy the applications or set up their own online infrastructure to deploy applications."
"Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager's most valuable aspect is it has plenty of features."
"Its best feature is that its plugins are somewhat unique in the market. We have budgets, Prime membership, and pre-plugins available in the marketplace that we can use immediately."
"The most valuable features of the solution for securing APIs stem from the tool's ability to allow users to deploy policies."
"The ease of policy maintenance and API functionality are key features for me. They streamline business processes by allowing configurable control over policies, instead of writing codes and making maintenance more straightforward."
"We have all the policies available via drag and drop. It made it very easy."
"It provides all of the robust platform-enabled features."
"The development portal could be improved."
"The entire lifecycle management approach needs improvement: from the API management, development, deployment, some of the settings around the quotas, and some security policy applications, etc. for the APIs. We found the Apigee platform a lot more robust in that area."
"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 implementation of CA API Management was complex. It is a complicated solution. You have to know so much IT knowledge to do the implementation."
"It needs better mobile features and HA configuration."
"The product's initial setup phase is not very straightforward, making it an area where improvements are required."
"CA double up portal is a pain. It is something that we are struggling with right now."
"Provide complete documentation with examples of usage on its build in assertion/function."
"We find that the enterprise level is lacking scalability."
"The solution is expensive."
"It can offer workflows, orchestration, and webhooks."
"Since most components are situated in the cloud, there's one particular hosted in the cloud. This presents a considerable challenge. While all other components are implemented on-premises, this specific one isn't permitted to be hosted in the cloud as per customer requirements. Shifting this component to an on-premises environment requires a significant effort."
"Their studio performance is very slow, it requires a lot of memory, and should be improved."
"An area for improvement in MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager is the process of applying policies because it's manual. It would be great if MuleSoft could make the process easier, particularly by automating it."
"I'd like more monitoring and analyzing features included in the future."
"We have issues with the tool's pricing. The product seemed to have most of the features required for the tasks I was working on. I didn't feel the need for additional features. However, one aspect that could be improved is making the platform more user-friendly for non-technical users. While it's not necessarily complex, it does require some familiarity. Unlike open-source tools available online, accessing and using this product may not be as straightforward. It needs to offer training to its users."
More MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
Layer7 API Management is ranked 10th in API Management with 109 reviews while MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager is ranked 4th in API Management with 47 reviews. Layer7 API Management is rated 8.4, while MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager is rated 8.2. 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 MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager writes "Responsive technical support, low tickets issued showing great stability, and limitless expansion". Layer7 API Management is most compared with Apigee, Kong Gateway Enterprise, Amazon API Gateway, Microsoft Azure API Management and IBM API Connect, whereas MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager is most compared with Microsoft Azure API Management, Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, Kong Gateway Enterprise and 3scale API Management. See our Layer7 API Management vs. MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager 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.