We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure API Management and webMethods.io Integration 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."Monitoring: It gives us a detailed overview of how clients are using the API and it allows us to see the consumption trends in real-time."
"The package as a whole is useful for our customers."
"This solution is very flexible, and it's very compatible with the other Azure products."
"The mediation and translation from SOAP to REST technology makes it possible to open up legacy systems that couldn't be opened before."
"The most valuable features are the API and integrations."
"The ability to easily connect back to Service Fabric is the most important for us."
"Most of the features are valuable to me."
"I like the support they provide for the APIs more than the solution itself. First of all, documentation-wise, both Microsoft Azure and even Google Cloud are up there. But in comparison, the real-time consulting and support for APIs make Microsoft stand out a little. I also like the performance. Standard public cloud provider-built APIs are more resilient and flexible in terms of what feature you want to use and what feature you don't want to use, and they're more customizable. They are more resilient in terms of performance in that particular environment because that is the design aspect of the offering. When public clouds build APIs and deploy them after testing them on their framework for a certain amount of time, I feel there is a massive difference in the product's performance. On the interface, everything is strong."
"Oracle's self-service capabilities, of which we make extensive use, is the most valuable feature."
"There's hardware, software and application integration, providing hosting flexibility."
"It's easy to construct new interfaces like apps and client portals."
"Our use case is for integration factory for SAP. It is mostly for SAP integration."
"I like the tool's scalability."
"The solution is scalable."
"The connectivity that the tool provides, along with the functionalities needed for our company's business, are some of the beneficial aspects of the product."
"Microsoft Azure API Management is lagging behind Apigee and should also have a better CICD process."
"Performance issues from this platform need to be sorted out."
"One of the most important improvements for us would be if it supported the HTTP/3 version and new protocol over a quick connection."
"Multi-tenant functionalities is missing from the system, especially when it comes to the developer code of features."
"I would like to see more security features become available."
"Microsoft Azure API Management needs to improve stability."
"If I compare this solution to others I have used in other phases of my life, having APIM being an Azure resource, it is easy to configure and deploy. However, this conversely reduced the flexibility. The difficulty is how do we configure it in a manner that a larger enterprise would probably want it to be. This creates a bit more complexity, working around the constraints of the resource itself. If comparing it to other solutions, it is more of a legacy design with an older approach. The various level components are still around resembling an on-premise type of design similar to other solutions, such as Apigee or Mulesoft. They are still predominantly carrying some legacy design. Which might be suited for organizations where they have a more complex network layout. APIM is easy to deploy, but on the other side of that, it is constrained to how Azure has designed it to be."
"Microsoft Azure API Management could improve the documentation. The documentation feels like marketing information and not sufficient technical information. Your easiest option is to purchase services from a Microsoft partner and this is their marketing."
"The solution's release management feature could be better."
"The product's stability is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"webMethods.io Integration's installation is complex. It should also improve integration and connectors."
"I am not satisfied with the solution because it takes too much effort to migrate and add new information. The migration could be easier."
"Rules engine processes and BPM processes should be improved."
"The products, at the moment, are new and there should perhaps be support for the older version of the protocols."
"It is difficult to maintain."
More Microsoft Azure API Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure API Management is ranked 1st in API Management with 68 reviews while webMethods.io Integration is ranked 29th in API Management with 7 reviews. Microsoft Azure API Management is rated 7.8, while webMethods.io Integration is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure API Management writes "Efficiently manages and monetizes API ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods.io Integration writes "Though the tool provides great connectivity functionality, it needs to be made more stable". Microsoft Azure API Management is most compared with Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Kong Gateway Enterprise and Apache APISIX, whereas webMethods.io Integration is most compared with webMethods Integration Server, SAP Cloud Platform, Apigee, Microsoft Azure Logic Apps and Amazon API Gateway. See our Microsoft Azure API Management vs. webMethods.io Integration 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.
