We performed a comparison between IBM API Connect and webMethods API Portal based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Google, Amazon Web Services (AWS) and others in API Management."The centralized management: this provides a management module that can deploy and apply security policies to all APIs, including all the gateways that are deployed on-premises and on any cloud because the gateway component can run at a VMware or in a Kubernetes cluster."
"I have found the API Management to be most valuable."
"The gateway is the most valuable aspect of this solution."
"It allows enterprises to expose some of their tech to outside stakeholders."
"The solution is very stable."
"WSRR is a powerful component for getting the endpoints."
"It is quite stable. We've not had any problem. It has made for a good buy because we are finding that other companies that have similar set ups go down maybe once a month."
"IBM API Connect is a good product, and their technical support is excellent."
"webMethods API Portal is overall very valuable. It is now a comprehensive API catalogue that serves various purposes, including API assessment and evaluation."
"We have found the pricing of the solution to be fair."
"It is good for communicating between the systems and for publishing and subscribing. We can easily retrieve data. It is good in terms of troubleshooting and other things."
"I would like to see automation of the installation. If there could be a single-click function where you could automate everything, that would be helpful."
"It would be helpful to have access monitoring."
"Components, like caching, should be implemented as policies, not requiring dependency on an external solution."
"It would be nice to have a SaaS solution that can be deployed into the cloud."
"It's based on a little bit dated architecture. A lot of evolution has happened after that. It's an evolving field. Kong is a Kubernetes-based platform. Kong runs on Kubernetes, but all the other ones are in microservices. So, there's a lot of improvement that can be done."
"The installation was difficult with the IBM toolkit."
"Support for this platform could still be improved. It also needs to have more levels of versatility. Its compatibility and integration with different platforms also need improvement."
"While Azure API Management offers configurable scalability, IBM API Connect relies on Kubernetes clusters. This might seem manual and require defining cluster instances upfront, but it's completely customizable and not on-the-fly scaling. It's completely custom-driven, not on-the-fly scaling, which some may consider cumbersome."
"The improvement needed is related to the model's position. As of now, it seems to be more of a conceptual idea rather than a widely implemented solution. For how long"
"The on-premises setup can be difficult."
"Some of the things that we use cannot be done in this solution. For these things, we have to either use a Java service or a util service. There is no predefined or existing service that we can use. So, we have to work on the util service and write on top of it. Its price can also be better. It is pretty costly because they charge us for each transmission."
IBM API Connect is ranked 5th in API Management with 73 reviews while webMethods API Portal is ranked 23rd in API Management with 3 reviews. IBM API Connect is rated 8.0, while webMethods API Portal is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of IBM API Connect writes "Good speed and performance, but it's based on a bit dated architecture". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods API Portal writes "Stable, with good technical support, but the on-premises version can be difficult to set up". IBM API Connect is most compared with IBM DataPower Gateway, Apigee, Microsoft Azure API Management, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager and SAP Cloud Platform, whereas webMethods API Portal is most compared with Microsoft Azure API Management.
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.