We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The ease of use of the solution is excellent."
"I have found this solution to be easy to configure, simple to use, and flexible."
"The user management is pretty seamless."
"The integration with Azure Active Directory is a good security feature for authentication and authorization. There is multifactor authentication. You can also use all of the Azure AD features integrated with API Management."
"The package as a whole is useful for our customers."
"It's easy to use compared to other products. It's easy to set up."
"The most valuable features are the ease of use and it is a platform that has self-enablement for the customers to be able to register themselves."
"This solution is very flexible, and it's very compatible with the other Azure products."
"Offers good integration and flexibility."
"The stability overall has been pretty great."
"Whenever there was an issue, the support was excellent."
"The documentation is great; it is always up to date and well-presented."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to investigate APIs."
"The most important features are the API management and API development."
"One of the more valuable features is the stability of the platform."
"Technical support has been helpful."
"Other products have more customization options."
"If I compare this solution to others I have used in other phases of my life, having APIM being an Azure resource, it is easy to configure and deploy. However, this conversely reduced the flexibility. The difficulty is how do we configure it in a manner that a larger enterprise would probably want it to be. This creates a bit more complexity, working around the constraints of the resource itself. If comparing it to other solutions, it is more of a legacy design with an older approach. The various level components are still around resembling an on-premise type of design similar to other solutions, such as Apigee or Mulesoft. They are still predominantly carrying some legacy design. Which might be suited for organizations where they have a more complex network layout. APIM is easy to deploy, but on the other side of that, it is constrained to how Azure has designed it to be."
"They should improve the inbuilt policies that they have and that should properly create a deployment architecture as well."
"The portal where we publish the APIs could be improved. Maybe this is because we didn't configure it. It is quite easy to bypass API management because we have a lot of information shared on the portal, where we publish our APIs. I worry there is potential for a security breach in the API publishing. There needs to be more security available on terms of the way we publish them."
"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."
"The documentation could be improved for the customer."
"In terms of improvement, it would be helpful if they could develop an on-premises option."
"Microsoft Azure API Management could improve by having better integration with third-party solutions."
"Their analytics needs a lot of improvement. It's really lacking right now."
"Better documentation to help explain each of the features would be really helpful."
"With respect to the live help, I have language issues because I can't understand some of the things that I hear."
"The API gateway and API runtime are too heavy, which means that it is not suitable for microservices."
"Not many stand-out features."
"Rather than focusing on numbers, they should focus more on the customer support service."
"The initial setup is very complex."
"I would like to see more automation. Operations are done manually. It should also automate in the operation."
"Based on the resources that we are leveraging, the price we are paying to use this solution is slightly higher than other competitors. In a few cases, it has its own advantage in some resources."
"The licensing fees are expensive."
"Since this is a cloud-based solution you have to abide by those financial limits, this creates some different challenges compared to other solutions."
"The price of the solution is reasonable compared to others."
"It's being paid monthly."
"The licensing fees are approximately $80,000 USD per year and there are costs for additional functionality, as well as premiums for connectors to systems such as Oracle and SAP."
"I'm unsure about licensing costs because I'm not the person who handles this. But, ballpark, it's probably somewhere around $300,000-$400,000 or something like that."
"The pricing is very expensive, although you get a lot of power from the product."
API Manager is a component of Anypoint Platform for designing, building, managing, and publishing APIs. Anypoint Platform uses Mule as its core runtime engine. You can use API Manager on a public cloud, such as CloudHub, a private cloud, or a hybrid. A hybrid deployment is an API deployed on a private server but having metadata processed in the public cloud.
Microsoft Azure API Management is ranked 2nd in API Management with 20 reviews while Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager is ranked 3rd in API Management with 14 reviews. Microsoft Azure API Management is rated 7.6, while Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure API Management writes "Easy to use API management with a platform that allows customers to register themselves". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager writes "Good API management and an excellent enterprise platform". Microsoft Azure API Management is most compared with Apigee, Amazon API Gateway, Kong Enterprise, IBM API Connect and WSO2 API Manager, whereas Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager is most compared with Apigee, Amazon API Gateway, Kong Enterprise, IBM API Connect and Layer7 API Management. See our Microsoft Azure 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.