We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure 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."Access control is the most valuable aspect."
"The ability to easily connect back to Service Fabric is the most important for us."
"I like API Management's ability to do hybrid cloud stuff."
"The most valuable features are the API and integrations."
"Microsoft Azure API Management is 90 to 99 percent scalable. We have three instances running in parallel."
"We're pretty much using all of the monetizations features out of the API manager so we can put up a portal and have a dev portal and then a prod portal and do rate limiting."
"Azure API Management is an API gateway that can be used for different purposes, for example, to monetize APIs."
"Initial setup was quite easy."
"The performance is good."
"Clients choose webMethods.io API for its intuitive interface, promoting seamless interaction and quick communication between systems."
"The API gateway can be very complex."
"The product needs to introduce a developer portal."
"From my understanding, there are some constraints around governance and service-to-service intercommunication managing priorities and our own governance."
"Price is the first thing that comes to mind. It's quite expensive, which could be a barrier for some users."
"It would be better if it were easier to transition to Azure from JIRA. For example, different nomenclature must be performed when you shift to Azure from JIRA. JIRA's storage, tasks, and ethics are treated differently from Azure. Here they might become functions, which is not an option in JIRA because that nomenclature difference is there. If someone has to get into the nomenclature, then there can be different tasks from clients, and here, they may be treated as functions. JIRA has sub-tasks, but sub-tasks don't exist in Azure. The nomenclature and the linking between ethics and a function and a story are different, and people may have to learn to adapt to the new nomenclature."
"The documentation could be improved for the customer."
"Could use clearer configuration when it comes to API policies."
"Microsoft Azure API Management could improve the documentation. The documentation feels like marketing information and not sufficient technical information. Your easiest option is to purchase services from a Microsoft partner and this is their marketing."
"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."
More Microsoft Azure API Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure API Management is ranked 1st in API Management with 67 reviews while webMethods.io API is ranked 30th in API Management with 2 reviews. Microsoft Azure API Management is rated 7.8, while webMethods.io API is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure API Management writes "Efficiently manages and monetizes API ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods.io API writes "Offers a strategic toolset for gradual integration advancement". Microsoft Azure API Management is most compared with Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Kong Enterprise and IBM API Connect, whereas webMethods.io API is most compared with Apigee and MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager. See our Microsoft Azure 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.