Most Helpful Review
Rapid development and deployment of APIs; I can present data in the format in which the client wants to consume it
An inexpensive integration solution that needs more time to develop as a mature product with better brand recognition
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
This improved our organization, because it gives the management data to discuss for the next course of action and it suggests what to work on, as the next thing.
I work for an information security company. CA API Management is capable of using tokens for authorization to manage access control for the APIs.
As an organization grow, you can use CA API Management for authentication purposes through the CA API Gateway. It allows for multiple identity providers with different Active Directories.
The solution helped us to quickly publish and monetize APIs. I have used versioning responses to publish or send APIs to different customers with different versions.
From a security standpoint, it works great. It is the right solution for us. It's lightweight, a software-appliance configuration which was easy to deploy and configure.
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.
Containerization and the monetization module are quite unique for an API tool... In addition, the development time and rollout time are pretty quick.
The security checking authentication is our primary use case for this solution.
When orders come in they go into our ERP system directly, so there is integration there.
It's the reliability. And the message tracking is quite good, where we can go in and see if we have an issue.
The solution's capabilities in fulfilling our existing B2B integration requirements are brilliant. Among our multiple customers we connect to SAP systems, JDE, all the various ERPs that you can possibly get, Oracle procurement systems, etc. We haven't come across anything yet — and customers are trying to trip us up — that we can't do.
SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS) has been good at communicating between two applications, changing formats and using the required protocols... We can have one site communicating in an old FTP or SFTP style, or via file transfer. And with other applications, we could have API or a web service call or some other protocol used to send information.
What would have been a manual process of transmitting data items around between us and third-parties has been automated. SEEBURGER BIS handles the automation and mapping side of the communications. The automation, along with the efficiency around time and cost, has improved our organization. Around 20,000 messages a month have been automated. These typically would be financial/order transactions and confirmations in invoicing that have been automated.
One of the things that SEEBURGER always touts is their ability to do "any to any" formatting... it doesn't matter if you want to take a CSV file or an XML file or a flat file or a PDF file or a structure EDI file; you can transform it from one format to another - any to any or even to the same format - which is a really nice feature.
In our landscape, we have a lot of AS/400s or iSeries and SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS) has a file service listener that allows data to seamlessly be transferred between the SEEBURGER solution and the AS/400.
It is a good product for API management.
The feature I find most valuable is that this solution allows us to manage our security.
From the last version, they have added more dashboard support, but there is still a lot they need to improve. In terms of monitoring, it's almost all covered. The interface can be improved, though.
One specific feature that we need is the ability to authenticate directly to the server with API data. It's not complex nowadays. This is a feature that we need and CA doesn't have it.
They need a workflow for the API Developer Portal, where the process only allows requests to go to the correct person.
The implementation of CA API Management was complex. It is a complicated solution. You have to know so much IT knowledge to do the implementation.
The entire lifecycle management approach needs improvement: from the API management, development, deployment, some of the settings around the quotas, and some security policy applications, etc. for the APIs. We found the Apigee platform a lot more robust in that area.
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.
The security protocols in CA's product, for financial services, weren't as good as those in API Connect.
We have experienced technical difficulties with the product in the past.
There might be some improvements they could make to the portal, but they're not anything that stops me from working.
We don't have much access to the logs or what's happening. So we have to log a ticket with SEEBURGER. We only get a message that something has failed... we have to open a ticket with SEEBURGER for them to tell us exactly what the issue is... I would like us to be able to be more self-sufficient.
There are some aspects at the front, the actual queries that you use, that could be improved. They're all very minor to be honest.
We wanted to use API. We were told that in 6.52 we could use API management. Later on, we found that API management wasn't that completely integrated into the 6.52 solution, and if you wanted to have the whole API suite you might have to go to 6.7, the latest one.
The speed of development needs improvement. If you acquire any customization, it can be a slightly slow process. I would like to see more flexibility around customizations. The time frame right now depends on the sophistication and customization, but we have to go through a process of getting them to develop, implement, and test it. This might take a couple of weeks. If it was a simpler system to customize, the time could probably be cut by half or down by even 25 percent of what it would normally take.
The BIS Front End needs a little bit of refreshing, especially when it comes to setting up new trading partners and trading partner agreements or transactions. It can be a bit clumsy to copy and rename and then go in and modify.
On the server side, there are a lot of administration and configuration files that you need to go in and do maintenance on. You have to find them in a certain folder so it's very error-prone and it can be a little time consuming unless it's documented. They could pull some of those individual configuration files into the product itself where there's a better user interface for that.
They made improvements to the email error alerts that go out, for the EDI technical. Those typically go straight out to the partners. Those messages are significantly clearer and easy to read. The same messages in the front end are not nearly as clear. It's supposed to be the same error, but the message that goes out for EDI is really easy for anybody to read and understand, but you have to be really solution-savvy to understand the message in the system itself.
It is a young product and does not have the kind of brand recognition that would make it a more popular solution with our clients.
I would like to see some additional features like having some extensions for .NET core because we use it for our back-end language.
Pricing and Cost Advice
APIs can be developed to provide security. We can show them in one single pane of glass, such as the CA API Management API Developer Portal. It is there that we can provide the monetization for their APIs and what is happening on third-party applications, like Paytm or BookMyShow.
CA API Management has a licensing path. If you want more features, it requires more licenses and more installation time.
It has a reasonable pricing model by instance.
For what we are after, the pricing is okay. It is competitive.
We weren't comfortable with the pricing of licensing. It was slightly more expensive than its competitors.
I do not have experience with the pricing or licensing of the product.
I think it's competitive. It's not that expensive when you compare CA with the Oracle product.
I feel that it is costly for medium-sized companies.
There is a standard agreement for the messaging every month. But if we make a change request — a change to a mapping or something like that — then there is a fixed price per hour.
We pay per message we use. We spend about £19,000 a year with them.
On an annual basis, our support costs, which are based on the licensing, are about £120,000.
The cost-based model is slightly different now in SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS). They changed the licensing, based on adapters and other things. In the old style of licensing, the whole suite was one license...
Our licensing model is based on transactions. We have a base service contract which is priced against a volume of transactions and another volume of individual transactions, which are covered by one service agreement. Then, we have development services on top of that. Our annual spend is around £80,000. It's about mid-priced, as there are some cheaper alternatives out there and some more expensive ones. It's neither cheap nor expensive. It's somewhere in the middle.
We have additional ad hoc development costs, but those vary depending on if we're bringing on another third-party into our systems via the EDI integration. So, that's highly variable.
All the new adapters are individually priced, which is good. You don't buy the whole system and then if you don't use it, you don't use it. You only buy the stuff you want...
Sometimes it seems a little pricey, especially when some of the stuff is available through freeware, like SFTP communications... It costs a lot more money to buy this stuff from SEEBURGER but I think it's worth it in the long run.
The price is low compared to other products of a similar type.
Compared 33% of the time.
Compared 16% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Compared 24% of the time.
Compared 20% of the time.
Compared 13% of the time.
Compared 26% of the time.
Compared 21% of the time.
Compared 14% of the time.
Also Known As
|CA Live API Creator, Espresso Logic, CA API Gateway||Seeburger Business Integration Suite|
|CA (A Broadcom Company)||Seeburger||Tyk|
To compete successfully and thrive today, enterprises across every industry need to transform. This process is not just about incremental improvement, but about evolving core businesses to meet the demands of today’s connected world.
CA API Management accelerates this digital transformation by providing the capabilities you need to bring systems together, secure these integrations, deliver better customer experiences faster and capitalize on new opportunities.
Read more at http://www.ca.com/api
The SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS) is a central platform for all integration activities. It enables you to respond easily, rapidly and innovatively to your digital transformation challenges:
|Tyk is an open source API Gateway that is fast and scalable, an API management platform featuring an API gateway, analytics, developer portal and dashboard. Available in three flavours to best suit your architecture and governance. We offer full cloud or on-premises options, and the best of both worlds with our unique hybrid model. www.tyk.io|
Learn more about CA API Management
Learn more about SEEBURGER BIS
Learn more about Tyk
|Alaska Airlines, The Advisory Board Company, Amerigroup, IceMobile, R+V Versicherung, U.S. Army - plus hundreds of other customers in the banking, energy, finance, healthcare, government, manufacturing, transportation and retail sectors.||Altis, Autoliv, Cebi, Cofresco||Trip Advisor, Juniper Networks, AT&T|
Financial Services Firm29%
Comms Service Provider7%
Software R&D Company18%
Financial Services Firm16%
Software R&D Company30%
No Data Available
No Data Available