We performed a comparison between OpenLegacy and webMethods API Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Google, Amazon and others in API Management."OpenLegacy provides a way to go from the outside world to the legacy mainframe, to move the old standard application to a REST API application. New digital services can be created in a few clicks and this can be done easily by COBOL programmers."
"It is possible to solve larger legacy API issues on an enterprise level with this product."
"The biggest advantage of OpenLegacy was how simple the technology was. We were able to build out the OpenLegacy parts very quickly. We put together a couple hundred APIs in six months."
"It is possible to connect a service to a mainframe program or back transaction in a matter of minutes or hours at the most."
"Using OpenLegacy, the exposure of services is far easier and quicker. In many cases, exposure of services requires just a few clicks and takes only minutes. In very complex cases, it still only takes half a day. Without OpenLegacy, it would take us several months to create the same services."
"Using mainframe programs (not screens), the OpenLegacy services do not require any changes by the mainframe programmers, thus reducing development cycles."
"Opens the door to connect modern web products to an old legacy system."
"OpenLegacy produces a war file which includes everything you need to deploy a Tomcat server."
"The developer portal is a valuable feature."
"The most valuable aspect of this solution for me has been the configuration-based UI. Once you get the hang of it, it enables you to easily develop an API. In addition, it has many in-built policies that are quite handy."
"In the API gateway, there is a new feature that allows us to filter logs within a payload. This has been a useful feature."
"This solution has given us a competitive advantage because we have better automation and insight."
"I like the solution's policies, transformation, mediation, and routing features."
"It's a good tool, and it has a stable messaging broker."
"What I like the most about the solution is that it comes with ready-made tools like handling security tokens and OAuth."
"Within the new version, webMethods API Gateway gives us an end-to-end lifecycle from the creation of the API up into the development, deployment, and promotion into production/live. The current end-to-end lifecycle of the API gives us enough authority and governance of the API. We know what are currently live services, what is in the testing stage of development, and what version that has been commissioned. So, the full life cycle itself gives us full authority and governance of the API."
"We would also be more than happy if the product had the option to work in the opposite direction – the ability to consume REST/SOW services in the outer world from the mainframe."
"I would like to see SSL out-of-the-box. OpenLegacy certainly does SSL, but it was not the default for our use case. We are currently working with OpenLegacy to cross the SSL bridge and suspect that most users will want to do the same."
"Debugging and logging for programmers could be better."
"Customer support for the product is slow and not very good. It makes using the product difficult if you need help quickly."
"The pricing of the solution could be more flexible and allow for once-off payment versus annual licensing. This would be more appealing to companies in Latin America."
"I'd like to see OpenLegacy develop its low-code/no-code (LCNC) solutions. They've expanded somewhat their horizons for integration beyond mainframe CICS, which is their sweet spot. They have some tooling in that area, but it's not as good as it needs to be."
"The configuring of the JWT token would be improved as it is a confusing process. We require more information on this part of the solution."
"They should develop clear visibility for the onboarding."
"Understanding the overall architecture is difficult."
"In terms of improvements, maybe on the API monetization side, having users able to create separate consumption plans and throttle all those consumption plans towards the run time could be better."
"With performance, there is room for improvement in regards to if we would like to put another extra layer of security on it, such as SSL. This is affecting their performance quite significantly. They need to improve the process of managing the SSL and other things inside their solutions, so there will not be quite such a significant impact to the performance."
"There are things that could be improved with the webMethods API gateway. One thing is that it's too attached to the integration service and we'd like it to be a little bit more independent. We would like for them to separate operations so that it doesn't rely on the bulky integration server and so that it can be used everywhere."
"It is an expensive solution and not very suitable for smaller businesses."
"With respect to the API gateway, the runtime component, the stability after a new release is something that can be improved."
Earn 20 points
OpenLegacy is ranked 37th in API Management while webMethods API Gateway is ranked 12th in API Management with 9 reviews. OpenLegacy is rated 7.6, while webMethods API Gateway is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenLegacy writes "The biggest advantage is how simple the technology was". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods API Gateway writes "We developed several services in the cloud using a sandbox environment for our last hackathon". OpenLegacy is most compared with Kong Enterprise, IBM API Connect, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager and Apigee, whereas webMethods API Gateway is most compared with Apigee, webMethods.io Integration, Kong Enterprise, webMethods Microgateway and CentraSite.
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.