We performed a comparison between 3scale API Management and Microsoft Azure API Management 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 standard deployment is very simple."
"The most valuable features are the gateway and security features."
"3scale API Management's best feature is API management."
"The solution is quite lightweight, and the installation is very easy. It's like a two-click installation."
"The product is stable."
"I like the API automation."
"The gateway is the most valuable feature because it makes it possible for us to gather all traffic into one proxy, which is a good thing."
"It's good that they aren't adding a lot of features like ESP, etc. It's okay with just being a gateway."
"Azure API is scalable."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure API Management is monitoring. When compared with Apigee, I prefer Microsoft Azure API Management."
"The documentation and configuration of APIs."
"The tool helps to manage APIs."
"API Management does not take long to deploy."
"The ability to easily connect back to Service Fabric is the most important for us."
"It's easier to use and has more features than Google."
"The integration with Azure Active Directory is a good security feature for authentication and authorization. There is multifactor authentication. You can also use all of the Azure AD features integrated with API Management."
"3scale API Management only supports restful APIs and doesn't support SOAP."
"The product is not that flexible for developers. It's less flexible and rigid. It's not easy to make changes or customize it."
"It would be helpful to improve the customization features so that the customer can do it based on their own needs."
"The user experience could be better. The developer portal is too complex and hard to configure."
"What was suggested by Red Hat was a crucial part of the configuration, but when we started to ask about the supportability of this configuration, Red Hat said only some parts of the configuration would be supported."
"I believe the CMS part of it has room for improvement though. That is where you write a couple of things if you want to publish your API. It's based on liquid scripting, which doesn't seem like the obvious ones to script with."
"What I'd like to improve in 3scale API Management is its route-limiting feature. Currently, I don't know how to do that effectively on the solution, but in Kong, I know how to do it, so I would love to see route-limiting being easily done on 3scale API Management. It would also be good if there was some authentication that you could do from 3scale API Management because Kong offers that functionality out of the box. What I'd love to see in the next release of 3scale API Management is the ability to integrate more plug-ins easily onto the platform, so you'll be able to extend it, and even do customs management. If Red Hat could offer that extension where it allows the internal organization where 3scale API Management is deployed on-premise to integrate its tools on top of 3scale API Management and provide an API for that, that will make the solution very powerful."
"We tried to use the portal, but we decided that it wasn't enough. The content management system (CMS) is not easy to use if you want to customize things, and it's hard to get someone who has the knowledge to work with the CMS."
"It would be better if it were easier to transition to Azure from JIRA. For example, different nomenclature must be performed when you shift to Azure from JIRA. JIRA's storage, tasks, and ethics are treated differently from Azure. Here they might become functions, which is not an option in JIRA because that nomenclature difference is there. If someone has to get into the nomenclature, then there can be different tasks from clients, and here, they may be treated as functions. JIRA has sub-tasks, but sub-tasks don't exist in Azure. The nomenclature and the linking between ethics and a function and a story are different, and people may have to learn to adapt to the new nomenclature."
"From my understanding, there are some constraints around governance and service-to-service intercommunication managing priorities and our own governance."
"Could use clearer configuration when it comes to API policies."
"There is room for improvement in the user interface and workflow for hosting APIs, especially third-party APIs."
"What would make Microsoft Azure API Management better are more APIs. They keep updating their APIs, but it would be better if the solution had more APIs for the services and more integration with other platforms."
"Technical support could be more helpful and responsive."
"Sometimes when immediate support is required, it isn't available."
"In the API you need to delete the suffix. It is annoying that you need to have a suffix. We can add a suffix at the API level, not at the operation level, and that could be improved on."
More Microsoft Azure API Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
3scale API Management is ranked 14th in API Management with 10 reviews while Microsoft Azure API Management is ranked 1st in API Management with 68 reviews. 3scale API Management is rated 7.4, while Microsoft Azure API Management is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of 3scale API Management writes "Useful as it lets you add a backend to the product, it integrates well with clusters, and it has exceptional technical support, but route-limiting isn't easy to do on it". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure API Management writes "Efficiently manages and monetizes API ". 3scale API Management is most compared with Amazon API Gateway, Kong Gateway Enterprise, Apigee, IBM API Connect and WSO2 API Manager, whereas Microsoft Azure API Management is most compared with Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Kong Gateway Enterprise and Oracle API Platform Cloud Service. See our 3scale API Management vs. Microsoft Azure API Management 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.