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."The mediation and translation from SOAP to REST technology makes it possible to open up legacy systems that couldn't be opened before."
"The ability to easily connect back to Service Fabric is the most important for us."
"The API management and the hosting of the API platform are great."
"It's a very robust tool. So you see that there is a developer portal which can be used by developer or the vendors as well. And other external partners to create keys and manage their own APIs. The other thing is that they have a lot of policies there are too many options within API. So I do the difficult to tell one, but probably I would say, like, proxy sorry. The policies is one of the thing wherein you can just configure the policies and modify the behavior of the APIs."
"Azure API is scalable."
"Initial setup was quite easy."
"The tool helps to manage APIs."
"I like API Management's sandbox feature. It's an environment where you can test out the API before putting it into production and connecting it to a live environment."
"The performance is good."
"Clients choose webMethods.io API for its intuitive interface, promoting seamless interaction and quick communication between systems."
"This solution is only available as a cloud-based deployment and it would be very helpful to have an on-premises version."
"Microsoft Azure API Management's most valuable features are the microservices we used to use. They were API callers to receive communication with the network and building system, to complete the request. The response would be through the processing system."
"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 developer console for external users could be improved, especially in the testing site."
"Could use clearer configuration when it comes to API policies."
"Price is the first thing that comes to mind. It's quite expensive, which could be a barrier for some users."
"Azure API Management could be improved with better integration with all of Microsoft's tools."
"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."
"I would like the solution to provide bi-weekly updates."
"A potential drawback of webMethods.io API is its adaptability to legacy systems, which can vary in compatibility."
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 Gateway 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.