We performed a comparison between Layer7 API Management and SwaggerHub 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 a stable product."
"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 Portal API helps us with deployments. It also helps to have a catalog of everything. The replication is also a critical feature for us. It helps to have a more robust architecture and makes our systems are highly available."
"What I found most valuable in Layer7 API Management is that you can launch the API from the gateway quickly and securely, making it less complicated to deploy APIs. I also like that Layer7 API Management has a good portal and dashboards and that the dashboards show you statistics regarding how many people used the API, etc."
"The solution's technical support is good."
"Tech support is fast and responsive."
"There are a few assertions which are built-in for threat protection. I have used them for vulnerabilities, like for DDoS attacks, XML schema validation, IP restriction, and for cross-domain."
"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 tool's most valuable feature is licensing."
"The most valuable features are the collaboration between multiple teams and the control and distribution of specifications."
"It is a stable solution."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy and not at all difficult."
"The scalability is endless."
"Code generation is one of the important features of SwaggerHub. We design our API, and we can generate a very rich codebase and add to it. The code generation feature is very valuable."
"I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten."
"It is quite a useful tool. It is quite good with the validation of the spec. It works quite well in terms of errors and conformity to the OpenAPI standard. It is better than Visual Studio Code in terms of editing."
"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 area where it certainly needs to improve is the way it allocates requests, in terms of rate limiting. Also, there is no native Kafka connectivity."
"We are looking for improvements related to integration. We want to see them add integration tools to the CA bundle. That would be helpful."
"The API Development tool can be made more user-friendly by providing folder properties."
"The CA API Management solution has good security features, but when it comes to being used in areas like enterprise integration, where it is being used as middleware for all the IT environments, that particular feature is quite limited. It doesn't support as many protocols as an industry standard, competing product should."
"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 only issue we have is that we have to buy an APM license separately for end-to-end monitoring."
"There are old algorithms that the tool does not support - and it shouldn't, in my opinion. But sometimes customers need old algorithms, from old use cases and old applications, migrated to the platform. At those times, there are hiccups that happen."
"We have to use additional tools to test APIs."
"It has limited functionality...Unfortunately, some of its features are not what we need."
"The review process should be improved. There seem to be some gaps, at least for us, for the editing part because we would like to have a full request review mechanism. They support some comments, but it is really hard to manage those comments. We would like to use the full request. Therefore, we are now looking to integrate with repositories. It has integration with Bitbucket and GitHub, but we have some internal constraints, and we need to move some of the repositories to GitHub. Our source code is on-premise in Bitbucket, and it was a bit of a problem for us to integrate. Now we are transitioning our repositories to GitHub, and hopefully, we can enable the integration. This will probably solve the problem with the review and approval. Its customization should also be improved. There are limitations around the support for the developer portal. There should be more customization options for the website that you can use as a developer portal. Currently, it has only Swagger UI with minimal customization. You cannot actually add additional pages and documentation for explaining concepts and general things. That's why we have started to look around to see what other tools are doing. They should also allow tagging on the API. We would like to add some tagging on the API to reflect certain things. Currently, any metadata that you would like to have has to be a part of the spec. You cannot do anything else. It should also have support for Open API 3.1, which was released at the beginning of the year. It would be great to be able to switch to that."
"SwaggerHub's UI needs to be improved as it looks very old school."
"SwaggerHub could be improved with better integration for tools."
"More integration and usability with the cloud microservices would be nice"
"SwaggerHub lacks in terms of integrations. They have APIs integrated, and they also have some connectors, but they don't have integration with many of the things that we use. For example, for connecting with SVN, we had to implement external scripts. So, they should work on the integration because currently, we have to work on the integration with our DevOps, continuous delivery, or continuous deployment. It would be great if these integrations are built-in. Mainly, we would like it to integrate with SVN and Jira."
"It could be more intuitive compared to one of its competitors."
Layer7 API Management is ranked 10th in API Management with 109 reviews while SwaggerHub is ranked 13th in API Management with 8 reviews. Layer7 API Management is rated 8.4, while SwaggerHub 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 SwaggerHub writes "An easy-to-use solution for the entry point of API documentation that needs to introduce some regulatory controls". Layer7 API Management is most compared with Apigee, Kong Gateway Enterprise, Amazon API Gateway, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager and Microsoft Azure API Management, whereas SwaggerHub is most compared with Microsoft Azure API Management, Apigee, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Amazon API Gateway and RapidAPI. See our Layer7 API Management vs. SwaggerHub 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.
