We performed a comparison between IBM API Connect and Microsoft Azure API Management based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Azure API Management provides DevOps by default and has a robust marketplace where users can easily integrate with existing APIs and begin work immediately. It scales easily and integrates seamlessly with Azure cloud infrastructure. In contrast, many users feel IBM is a bit dated and is lacking cloud-focused tools.It is also more difficult to deploy.
"In-built policies and security functions."
"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."
"The solution offers a pretty good SLA."
"The management of the API and API portal is good."
"It is a complete all-in-one solution."
"Our version supports containerized integration. I can write APIs, which can be moved into a testing environment without needing a forklift. It can check if APIs are compliant before moving them into production."
"Policy configurations are pretty easy."
"The most valuable features are stability and security."
"This solution is very flexible, and it's very compatible with the other Azure products."
"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."
"There were no scalability issues."
"The ability to easily connect back to Service Fabric is the most important for us."
"Initial setup was quite easy."
"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."
"The most valuable features are the API and integrations."
"The API management is great."
"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."
"We ran it on top of the Kubernetes cluster, so it wasn't a standalone service. In the worst-case scenario, API Connect couldn't stay online if all the containers went down. We had to restart all the services. We shut down all the containers automatically one by one."
"The initial setup and installation could be easier."
"We've had some issues upgrading to the latest version of the solution."
"The developmental process is not quite user-friendly."
"We have asked IBM for scalability and for some other features that we wanted. We had a dialogue with them and in the end, they have agreed to provide us with features related to API setup and security."
"Due to bugs in integration, we have to look for workaround on fixing and using DataPower as gateway."
"The implementation process could benefit from improvements, as it may take some time to become accustomed to the deployment."
"There is always room for improvement. There should be more analytics abilities so you can know how much traffic there is. Log Analyzer isn't well integrated with this solution."
"The documentation could be improved for the customer."
"API Management's price could be lower."
"The developer console for external users could be improved, especially in the testing site."
"I rate the technical support from Microsoft Azure API Management a four out of five."
"In the next release, Azure APIM should include deployment in various environments and CI/CD for deployment."
"The developer portal can be improved."
"The external policies are impossible to look at and configure."
More Microsoft Azure API Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM API Connect is ranked 5th in API Management with 73 reviews while Microsoft Azure API Management is ranked 1st in API Management with 68 reviews. IBM API Connect is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Azure API Management is rated 7.8. 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 Microsoft Azure API Management writes "Efficiently manages and monetizes API ". IBM API Connect is most compared with IBM DataPower Gateway, Apigee, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Amazon API Gateway and Kong Gateway Enterprise, whereas Microsoft Azure API Management is most compared with Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Kong Gateway Enterprise and WSO2 API Manager. See our IBM API Connect 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.
