If you were talking to someone whose organization is considering IBM API Connect, what would you say?
How would you rate it and why? Any other tips or advice?
I can recommend this solution and would rate it as an eight (out of 10).
I would rate IBM API an eight out of ten. I would recommend it. I'd say that you need some time to negotiate the documentation and the conflicting support that's on their website. The website will day to do one thing and in another place, you do something else. You need some time to negotiate that.
The client needs to understand the service to use it. They need to make sure that they have the back-end infrastructure to support API Connect. API Connect is known for its light front-end system. Therefore, it depends on what system it connects to on the back-end. It is important to know how it connects to the back-end. We are not using Cloud Pak, as it is still too new. We are using it in the lab. I would rate the solution as a nine (out of 10).
I would certainly recommend IBM API Connect for clients who are going with an enterprise version of implementation and when they have enough budget. Of course, if they have budget limitations, they can consider open-source solutions. As implementers, we have a big resource pool here in India. All our associates have expertise with API Connect as well as IBM App Connect. As of now, it is serving the needs of our customers. It is quite a proficient tool. It satisfies all of our requirements.
I would recommend API Connect to a vendor or financial institutions that are looking at using it. It's a nine out of 10. It's missing the authentication module so programming and customizing that takes a lot of time.
To cut down on your implementation time, read the documentation. It's long but explanatory. I would rate this solution as an eight (out of 10).
We are testing and I'm working for the Bank of Israel and we have to implement the regulation of the PSD2, the open bank, open banking, open API. We would implement it on API Connect, so it's not a production system, it's just a sandbox. In terms of advice, I would suggest anyone to verify that the product support is the latest version and to find out the frequency of the new versions of the product itself. I think it's very important to go through a project like this before implementation. I would rate this solution seven out of ten. I'd like it to be more cloud-based, for the open API 3 because currently all the specifications are published only on the API so you have to downgrade it and then input it into IBM.
Infrastructure setup was a bit painful. Knowledge up-take was not too painful if you are not doing anything complex. But when you start getting into complex APIs then maybe you need some bit of patience if you decide to use this solution. At the end of the day, it's a great product, I can't fault it for now. We haven't extensively used it, so I really can't say how it would perform over time, or what kind of issues it would have if it was enterprise-wide. I can't find fault with it, for now, it's doing good. I would rate the solution of seven and a half out of ten. My point of view is a bit stiff because I'm a developer. I don't mind going through some tech rigors. But looking at it from a more general standpoint, I don't think anybody wants to go through the process of some technical learnings. In terms of the knowledge base, it's not too fun for developers. In terms of setup, it's almost definitely not fun. Usage is working well and based on the architectural principles we are already facing some bit of redundancy on that.
In the 2018 version, the setup is less complicated, but it takes longer. I would rate this solution eight out of ten.
The product itself delivers on what is documented and we don't need any additional features. Currently, there are some features that are not working because of known errors. I would like to see an improvement in the stability, however. Once we've got it stable, we can push the limits. We can see what works and what doesn't work, and then we can comment on what is required for the future. I will, therefore, rate this a seven out of ten.