Microsoft Azure API Management Reviews

We use Microsoft Azure API Management with our coding.

All we need to do is run our specific code because the dependencies are already there. 

I would like to see more security features become available. For example, the integration on premises could be better. Things could be more user-friendly. Currently, the integration we work with is more complex than it needs to be.

I have been using Microsoft Azure API Management for the past thirteen months.

I am finding Microsoft Azure API Management stable.

Day by day we are increasing the usage of Microsoft Azure API Management.

My current experience with technical support has been good.

We were using DIS. We needed to install the run times, libraries, and install operating systems. We had to make a lot of initial preparations to get the process ready to operate. Now it is already available and ready to operate with Microsoft Azure API Management.

I would rate the initial setup process a four out of five.  The setup was basic and good.

We do our implementation through one of our partners. The configuration was around fifteen to twenty minutes long.

There is no investment funding or upfront cost needed. 

There are no licensing fees we pay on a monthly basis.

We compared it with DIS because most of the time we were using DIS, for such kind of deployment.

Many people are using the API, and it is a prominent feature currently being used. I would rate Microsoft Azure API Management an eight out of ten.

In general, we use it for the front application, like the mobile banking application or some other service stuff. We found that it's easier to maintain these internet connections and so on, on the cloud.

In general, we started with Microsoft Azure Cloud as we needed a close integration with our internal or Office solution. In case of Microsoft, Azure Active Directory is easily integrated within the Microsoft platform, including Office. In particular, in API Management, used as front-end APIs, it's easy to manage. Now, we are looking ahead to the hosted solution, which is very nice. 

We use Microsoft due to the stability of the company. 

It's efficient enough and it's just enough for our needs to manage rules and so aforth for API management. We use it due to Microsoft's reputation. We need a stable provider. We cannot play with some providers. 

It is easy to set up. 

The solution is scalable. It is stable as a product as well. 

It's okay. It's not as good as Google. For instance, in Apigee, in Google.

One of the most important improvements for us would be if it supported the HTTP/3 version and new protocol over a quick connection. It's a relatively new standard since 2020. 

I've used the solution for about three years. 

It is a stable product. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash. The performance is good. 

While it is scalable, there is some costs involved with expanding. 

We have about 100 people using the solution at the company in terms of deployment. In terms of clients using the solution, that's in the millions. 

We have a premium subscription. We have a local company, a local Microsoft office. We do not have a problem with the support from Microsoft.

We used a CA solution before, and CA was sold to Broadcom and everything changed, politics and so and so. We had to disable CA platform due to the provider. We believe the same issues will not happen to Microsoft.

The initial setup is very easy. It's not complex at all. 

There is a special group that is  responsible for the support and implementation of the platform.

I'm aware of Google, or Apigee, and it's quite a robust product. 

We are a customer and end-user.

It is a subscription service. It's definitely not on-premises in our organization. We do have our core system on-premises, of course.

I would recommend the solution. People have to first understand the different types of subscriptions, however. There are four of them, developer, and intermediates, and then premium, and it's costly. That said, it's not that expensive. It's a very technical piece of software. I can say it's stable and it satisfies our needs. It's just a bit complex. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

We are using Microsoft Azure API Management to host APIs.

The most valuable features of Microsoft Azure API Management are the easy configuration and deployment with automation.

There is a limitation of 32 kb of data in the APIs. Having the limitation increase would be a benefit.

I have been using Microsoft Azure API Management for approximately four years.

This is the best service we have used within Azure and it has high availability.

I rate the stability of Microsoft Azure API Management a ten out of ten.

The scalability of Microsoft Azure API Management is great. We only have some issues with the high costs.

We have approximately 100 people using the solution.

I rate the scalability of Microsoft Azure API Management a ten out of ten.

We have a dedicated team that supports us from Microsoft. It is excellent.

I rate the support from Microsoft Azure API Management a ten out of ten.

Positive

I have not used other similar solutions.

The initial setup of Microsoft Azure API Management is straightforward. However, we had an issue with the DSTV upgrade. It has its own logic of what to decide. 

The full implementation process of the solution takes time, approximately six hours.

To deploy Microsoft Azure API Management, we utilize TerraForm to incorporate modules that cover all departments. These modules have already been created, so we simply provide the necessary parameters and execute the pipeline. Consequently, we do not rely on the Azure portal for this process and instead rely solely on Azure automation.

I rate the initial setup of Microsoft Azure API Management a nine out of ten.

The solution is highly expensive. Our customers worry about the costs. The price should be a lot less. 

We are using the premium license.

I rate the price of Microsoft Azure API Management a seven out of ten.

The solution has provided us with a great overall solution in many areas, such as security, deployment, and integrations.

I rate Microsoft Azure API Management a nine out of ten.

We're a bank, so one of our primary use cases for API Management is integrating our API with third parties that provide financial policies. Sometimes they want to use our services, like payment and customer inquiry, so we give them access to the API gateway. 

Azure API Management allows you to control who has access to your API gateways and assign permission levels to third parties if you want integration with third-party solutions. That has a couple of advantages. Those third parties can directly access your API directly, and you can set limits. It can also configure authentication on other API managers.

An API gateway is like a platform, and your API provides access to the resources in your environment, so this gateway is an intermediary between you and third parties. It's also the interface between your internal applications. For example, if you have a mobile app and internet banking, they can all be copied in the same API through that gateway. So, that was basically the use cases we have. So, we have almost all the API's behind the gateway.

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 hybrid part could be improved because API Management is entirely cloud-based, but some of our resources are on-prem, so formatting is an issue. Our goal is dual implementation. 

There's always room for improvement in terms of the user interface. Generally speaking, technology evolves, so any service provider needs to make their product as user-friendly as possible. In the next couple of years, we'll see more non-tech people handling tech solutions. The solution should be more accessible, so people can use it to create things without being very tech-savvy.

We've been using Azure API Management for about three years.

API Management is stable.

API Management is scalable. The licensing is structured so that you save more at a higher scale. The only limit to the scale is how much you're willing to pay. 

We have an enterprise support contract for Microsoft, and we don't have problems with them. 

We used IBM ESB before Azure API Management, and we're using both now. ESB isn't the same as API Management from a technology perspective. They have distinct functions, but they can do similar things. You can view an API on IBM ESB, but you can view and expose API on Azure API Management. They solve similar problems but are not exactly the same.

Deploying API Management is somewhat tricky depending on your level of technical knowledge. The first time we used it in production, we had it for a couple of months. The first month was an evaluation period, so we had it in a test environment to get a feel for how it works and possible complications. However, you could deploy it in a couple of weeks if you wanted. 

You only need about two to manage it, including one admin. It's more like a platform-as-a-service, so we don't need to do the normal maintenance we do on an on-prem platform. 

We deployed API Management in-house.

I can't disclose how much we pay monthly, but the pricing for Azure API Management is available online. It's pay as you go. The subscription packages have room for different scales. It's calculated by the number of apps or computers you use. You do not have to use the enterprise subscription. These subscriptions have different pricing, so you can find one to meet your needs for scalability.

I rate Azure API Management nine out of 10. Your choice of technology is based on your needs, budget, and C suite. Azure API Management is a good product, but there are some other good services, like Azure Connect, Google APG, and a couple of others. It depends on your needs.

Using a cloud solution has advantages because the client can immediately use the product. Another strong reason we use Azure API Management is that we heavily use Microsoft products in our organization, so Azure is a natural choice.

There's a customer who wanted to migrate their API from their on-prem environment to Azure. They're looking at utilizing Azure API to manage all their other APIs. We just started with migrating one of their APIs. They're still working with it, still trying to learn the difference between what they had for on-prem and Azure. We are in the process of actually migrating a lot of their APIs.

Access control is the most valuable aspect. It's the main reason really why a lot of clients are moving - as we are able to deploy multiple APIs and be able to also segregate who's got access to which API, who's got access to the other API. That centralized management is what the customer is really looking for.

The initial setup was okay.

The solution isn't missing anything. For the use case that we have right now, it's perfect. It offers everything that you'd look for in an API Management solution.

There's a new developer portal that's been added before they rolled out the new updates. I haven't really checked it out, however, the developer portal that they introduced is better than before. They've really improved on that one. If you are using the old portal, it's not as good. 

We have two different customers. The other customer wants us to move completely, to migrate their APIs to Azure. The other one wants to manage their APIs, which are running on-prem. I've explored that in the flexibility, in terms of integration with an on-prem environment. The integration could be improved for those on-prem use cases. 

The integration with other API gateways is where they might try to improve.

Support could be better. 

I started using the solution six months ago.

In terms of stability, I have seen that it is packaged into four different plans. If I'm not mistaken, there should be basic, standard, conception, and developer. I wanted to try to avoid deploying a lot of units, it uses a concept of compute units or scaling units. I was using the conception tier, which is not designed to be highly available. I was testing features, I didn't mind the level of availability. I suspect that if you choose the high-end SQL, it's most likely to be available. However, in terms of cost, I'm yet to find that out.

If you compare the SQL, and that's one that really supports scalability across regions, it's good. It's very scalable.

We have ten developers using the solution right now. 

We do plan to increase usage. 

Microsoft is huge, and when it comes to support, it's not so great as compared to, if you have something software specific. Whenever you ask them a question, they assume you to know everything. It's challenging to get the level of support that you'd want.

Neutral

We used to use Kong. 

Kong is more of an on-prem API gateway, and this one is cloud-based. And given that many customers are migrating to the cloud, it was actually one of the reasons why we're convincing the customers that we have used their APIs to migrate to the cloud. 

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. 

I have a basic understanding of the API fundamentals. Those were what I was looking for; that's what I was looking for first, just to see if my understanding of the fundamentals. With my level of knowledge, it was fine. 

For someone with basic knowledge, you can deploy the solution within a week. 

There is some maintenance needed. However, that person is supposed to be someone who's more DevOps inclined.

We handled the initial setup in-house. 

I've been using the conception tier. If you choose the lower-end tiers, it'll be fine, cost-wise. However, those tiers are just for development purposes; they're not really for the production environment. I would suspect if you move onto the higher tiers, it'll be pretty pricey.

I was looking into Azure API Management and the equivalent and in AWS.

I wanted to compare the functionality between Azure API Management and Amazon API Gateway, as there's a customer that wants AWS API Gateway instead of Azure. I just wanted to see if the features are similar. I'm looking into that now. 

We're a Microsoft partner. 

The role that I have right now is a role where I'm a deployment engineer for cloud services, so depending on what the customer wants, someone's migrating from their on-prem, from VMware, the Linux, the Hyper-V to Azure, someone has to design highly available solutions, like applications that are tiered, that is three-tiered or two-tiered. Some want to utilize API Management. With API Management, we don't have a lot of customers on that front, as they sort of don't understand how it works. Right now, it's an area where we've worked with two of our biggest customers that have got multiple APIs on their on-prem environment. I've got basic experience, especially on what an API is and the benefits of Azure API Management as compared to what they have.

We're using the latest version of the product.

We are completely moving our customers from their on-prem APIs. It's a complete cloud solution; they don't want any hybrid solution.

I'd rate the solution six out of ten based on the level of knowledge I have. The learning curve is pretty high. It's API Management and it also supports API gateways. It didn't decentralize those features, so the learning curve that's there for someone is a bit much.

I would recommend the solution to others. 

Our company uses the solution for API orchestration and UI management. We currently have 50,000 users. 

The UI management is very easy to use. 

The solution provides good management of API orchestrations. 

Technical support is very good and moves very fast. 

The API gateway can be very complex. We had difficulty managing end users for a very, very complex project. 

I am not sure that another API gateway would have better handled this difficult project. 

I have been using the solution for four years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

We have a partnership with Microsoft. Their support is very good and moves very fast. They are available to us in a maximum of ten to twenty minutes. 

The setup is very easy and doesn't take long. 

We implemented the solution in-house. 

I also use WSO2 and Kong. Of all the options, Kong is my preference because it is easier to use. 

The solution's support is very good. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

It is easy to use. 

They need to work on the third party integrations. 

I have experience with Microsoft Azure API Management. 

The technical support team is good. 

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. 

Microsoft is competitively priced. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

We have a couple of use cases for this  product. It's fully cloud-native and can handle telco distribution for end-to-end distribution management. Five or six years ago, we made a  fantastic product with microservices. I was responsible for rolling it out for a large telco in Qatar. They had no distribution or end-to-end visibility or platform. So we helped them to move to a cloud platform for their entire distribution and operation. The beauty of that product is when you look at the telco distribution standpoint your maybe five or ten thousand merchant ecosystem will be connected to that platform. It helps with generating several transactions in a minute or second. And it gives that kind of scalability in the back end. 

The other use case was for banking transactions. If you have your core banking platform that is legacy, if a user wants to bring in a lot of additional alternatives, they need to have some kind of a platform for enhancements. We made a cloud to bring some kind of their operations to the cloud. We made a transaction platform for them so that their merchants could access transactions.

The API management is very good. You have sophisticated dashboards that help you to understand what's really going on - in addition to whatever security layer that you can bring on top of that. It is easy to manage front and backend APIs.

You can put on your own security layer so that you know only the authorized people are accessing your back-end systems through the gateway. In addition to that, you have sophisticated dashboards and reporting for storage logs or logging. That is quite useful, specifically in the banking sector. 

You can limit items by parameters such as geography or private VPMs. 

You have different pricing tiers and pricing is based depending on the traffic. You can go to basic pricing if you like. Depending on your traffic, you have licensing options.

Microsoft manages everything so you can focus on building applications and deploying them.

The platform components are quite interesting. 

I'm not sure if there are certain areas needed for improvement. I haven't explored its shortcomings. So far, the requirements have been met.

Maybe the customization could be a bit better. 

My team found difficulty in migrating APIs from one platform to this platform. We could export and import properly. We made a complete API for a UAT environment, and when we moved the APIs, we ran into issues. 

They don't have a standard local IP. They only have a public IP.

I've used the solution for six to eight years or so. 

I'd rate the stability eight out of ten. It is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution scales well. I'd rate it ten out of ten. It's easy to expand as needed. 

We have both medium-sized and enterprise-level customers. 

Technical support has been fine. We are happy with their level of support. 

Positive

I have worked with other competing products, such as Apigee and AWS.

The initial setup is very straightforward and simple. I'd rate the ease of deployment eight out of ten.

The provisioning takes a couple of minutes. Then you need to do some programming. 

The pricing is reasonable. I'd rate the cost in terms of affordability seven out of ten. 

The premium tier is too expensive for medium-sized organizations. However, the local IP only is offered at the premium tier. 

I did not compare this solution to others since I was promoting Microsoft at the time. 

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. 

People should explore API management. You do get full control of your API, and from a security standpoint, you have a good understanding of the touchpoints and far more control of your traffic. You know who is accessing your services. Even if a company has legacy systems, it should have an API gateway in front of its legacy systems.

We went with Microsoft since we were Microsoft partners.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.