Apigee Reviews

Apigee is an API gateway used for API management.

The most valuable feature of Apigee is its simplicity of deploying an API and restricting access, like rate limit, with the API.

The technical support could be improved because their response time is slow.

I have been using Apigee for two and a half years.

I rate Apigee an eight out of ten for stability.

Apigee is a pretty scalable solution. Approximately ten developers use Apigee in our organization. The traffic that we have is close to 10,000 API requests a day.

I rate Apigee a nine or ten out of ten for scalability.

The solution's deployment is quick and does not take more than an hour. However, when you face challenges, the support is not very great.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy, I rate Apigee an eight or nine out of ten for the ease of its initial setup.

Apigee is a pretty expensive solution.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten.

Apigee is deployed on the cloud in our organization. I would recommend the solution to other users. Our clients for Apigee are mostly medium and enterprise businesses.

Overall, I rate Apigee a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is for building an open API platform for a financial services company, and we needed something that could do the task quickly.

The most valuable features are low-code play, quick packaging, and production.

I would like to see the support improved. I think the time frame should be shorter for responses when it comes to technical support. This is not the ideal situation you want to be in when you need support.

I have been using Apigee for the past four years.

The stability is definitely close to a ten on a scale of one to ten.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the scalability around an eight. We currently have around twenty users implementing the solution on a regular basis.

When it comes to customer support I would rate them a six and a half because of the response time and prioritization. This prioritization factor is most likely due to geography.

We were using API Connect from IBM before switching to Apigee for better user readiness options.

The initial setup took a few weeks.  This was primarily because of us. It took us a while because of internal approvals. The team I was working with just was not fast enough.

When it comes to the return on investment it is pretty good. There is value for money when it comes to engaging external partners and collaborators. The initial cost is one tends to recover quickly with the right business case.

Apigee is expensive and not cost-effective. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate it an eight for the high cost. The changes individuals need to make on their side are costly.

Your team should be familiar with the product before you jump into it. There is training involved for the team, and before deploying and starting to use it, the team should get adequate training. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Apigee an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for all of our security. There are a few use cases for us where we use it to protect API to third parties.

The solution, overall, is quite good.

The product has a few restrictions I'd prefer weren't there.

We have trouble finding use cases. For example, when we google "data locator" we can't find a use case scenario at all. We can't find more than, approximately, five use cases, however, we need more.

We needed to do more than 20 configurations, and we weren't able to do that as the limit is 20 on the solution.

The solution tends to hide the limitations to keep selling the product. I can't blame them for doing it, however, it makes it difficult for those of us who eventually sign on.

The solution is expensive.

I've been dealing with the solution for close to three years at this point.

The stability of the solution is good. There aren't issues surrounding bugs or glitches. We don't find that it crashes or freezes. It's pretty reliable.

The scalability of the solution is okay. If a company needs to scale it, it should be able to do so.

Currently, we only have about ten people on our team that use it.

We haven't found the technical support to be that good, to be honest. We're not completely satisfied with the level of service.

We're currently using IBM Connect as well as Azure. Functionality-wise, there aren't too many differences. One is on-premises, however, therefore it's really difficult to compare both together. With IBM, you have to maintain a few more things. There are more administrative tasks.

The initial setup wasn't straightforward. It was complex due to the fact that Apigee didn't have any integrations and we had IBM APA Connect Resources.

There were many things we weren't told earlier. Once you clear certain items you can't change the name, for example. There were a few other items, like monitoring, which had a limited number of configurations which was an issue.

Deployment was fairly quick. It only took five minutes or so.

The solution is not a cheap product. Licensing can be quite expensive.

Our contract is around $2 million for three years.

We don't have a clear picture how the billing works. We have one service package of one size and yet we don't have a clear picture of the purchase or the status or if they will charge more due to earlier limits on services. The solution needs to make licensing more clear. Even if they charged us $10,000 or even $20,000 more but they were clear about the what and the why, we'd be okay with that. We'd just like to know.

We're just a customer. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

We are removing our IBM products and transition completely over to Apigee.

We have Azure's API as well. In next one year or two year, we are going to dissolve IBM API Connect as well as Azure CIM and move everything to Apigee.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I'd rate Apigee at an eight. We'd rate it higher, however, they aren't clear on their offering. We just want everything automated and easy. The cost is not the issue. The lack of information is.

I'd recommend the solution. It's a nice product and companies should go ahead with it, so long as they are okay with the pricing, as it is rather expensive. If a company is cost-consious, IBM API Connect may be better as the licensing costs are lower.

The primary use case for this solution is to integrate both external applications as well as internal applications. We use some to integrate other applications, but most of them are just proxies that are for fronting the backend APIs.

We want to create one API to be used by different clients. In terms of management, even though the proxying of an API is not a lot of work, it is better to create a single API that can be reused. When the API version changes, you only have versioning for a single API, rather than in several places with the same capability.

Moving forward, if you change or update the version, the underlying functionality of the application needs to fashion the APIs correctly. This solution is created for the same capability. To prevent that, we just create the same API, and then we productize it and you are versioning a single API and not going back and versioning different APIs that do the same thing.

One of the concepts offered with this solution is called Productization. This concept allows you to bundle the APIs together and present them to clients as products, which allows you to configure the API with restricted access for different clients. An example of this would be Client A is granted access as read-only and able to do a few updates, whereas Client B would have full access to the APIs. You can configure different products for them in such a way that one of the products would have limited access, and the other would be granted full access. You are not creating another API, rather you are using the same proxy with limited access to the proxy. This is one of the features that has helped us a lot. 

We have APIs that we use internally and externally for clients outside of our network using the cloud with a SaaS solution that needs to access our API. The same API we use internally is the same API we expose externally. The level of security is different for internal applications and for external applications. To accommodate both we use the same API but add additional security features to the APIs.

The number one area this solution could be improved is by implementing support. Support is not a part of this solution.

I think that this solution is pretty stable, but when the open-source vendors upgrade their software, Apigee doesn't conform with the upgrade of the open-source vendor. They require patch releases and an upgrade for on-premises users. The component is always late.

I think it's pretty scalable. Currently, we are doing about sixteen million calls per quarter. As we are not using it on a large scale, we don't usually have latency issues whatsoever. We have a clustered environment and there is little to no downtime, even when we are running patches on the operating system. We have between twenty-five and thirty regular developers that use this platform. We have four nodes in the cluster that are serving internal traffic, and then we have another four nodes for external traffic so that way we don't really require any upgrade.

At this time there is no immediate need to scale up the environment. We have four servers with four nodes in the cluster that service the internal traffic, and we have another four gateway nodes for the external traffic.

The support is lacking. One of the main reasons it is lacking is because they have different applications bundled together. As an example, they are using Apache ZooKeeper and Drupal from different open-source vendors. We have two critical security updates that require support. A claim had been opened in May and did not receive any support.

Compared to other vendors that we deal with, I would have to rate this solution a five or less in terms of support.

We are currently looking for other alternatives because of some issues we are facing.

We believe that they do not want to continue with their on-premises version of the product, as they are not responsive to support cases.

We have MuleSoft, but we are only using their ESB, not API management. Apigee is the first solution we are using for API management.

The initial setup is not straightforward. It is very complex. They use different open-source applications in this solution. When installing this solution you have to be knowledgeable in the different applications, what the different applications do, and how they behave with each platform.

The documentation they have available is very good and available online.

Using different applications bundled together in this single product makes the maintenance and installation a challenge. 

The deployment took three months. We had many different environments including development, test, QA, and production environments. For the QA and production environments, we had both an external and an internal gateway. We did this ourselves in conjunction with the Apigee team.

Most of the maintenance is being done by two of our offshore colleagues in Chennai, India. They maintain the platform.

It's a good return on my investment. In the past, we were struggling with the way we would interface with external clients, where we would open a firewall and do many network-level configurations before we were able to open an API. Now everything goes through Apigee and we only open the first ones for Apigee. After that, all other communication goes through Apigee.

We evaluated three different products, including API management from Apigee, API management from CA, and MuleSoft. This evaluation was three years ago, and at that time the Apigee platform was more mature than other platforms.

For on-premises I would not suggest this solution. Generally speaking, the product is a good one, it is matured and the features are okay. If anyone wants to use this solution they should first consider the cloud-based version.

Because the support is lacking, we would have considered a different product. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. If the support was better, I would have given them a nine.

I use Apigee to design the proxy and rebuild the pilot, which becomes the API developer's design. This saves time and money for the customer and Rapid7 and 8 by simplifying the process of synchronizing and obtaining actual IDs. 

Apigee is the tool we use to test the API.

Apigee provides good documentation.

The pricing is reasonable.

Apigee's certification is beneficial.

I like the customized tools included with Aigee such as CI/CD.

Apigee integrates well with Kubernetes, Atos, Jira, Microsoft Teams, as well as ServiceNow.

I'm not a fan of the developer portal. It should be simplified. There is an excessive amount of customization required. 

When compared to Azure, Azure is more user-friendly to customers.

Monitoring could be improved. Google Cloud provided better monitoring than Apigee. 

I still prefer monitoring in Azure or Anypoint MuleSoft.

It also requires additional tools to assist in the deployment of Apigee.

I would like to see the monitoring, dashboards, and reports improve.

I have been using Apigee for five years.

I am working with version 8.

Apigee is a stable solution.

Apigee is a scalable solution.

Technical support is very good.

They resolve issues quickly.

I have experience with many different platforms such as Mulesoft and Microsoft API Management.

In Azure, I use Azure DevOps and with Mulesoft I use Jira.

In my previous location, I partnered with Microsoft using Azure in API Management.

The initial setup was straightforward, however, when compared to MuleSoft, MuleSoft was easier.

QMance, C1/CD, GitHub, GitLab, and Jenkins were among the applications we used to manage Apigee deployment.

We completed the deployment ourselves.

The north direction used in SolarWinds and MuleSoft is the same as the north direction used in Azure and Azure DevOps for solution and system deployment.

From my perspective, Azure and Azure DevOps are the appropriate solution and system deployment tools.

I like the deployment and customization in Apigee.

The deployment process is a  scheduled tool on the file. In my opinion, testing the tool is important during the development process. However, in Azure, I haven't seen any tool testing. Therefore, I need to test the tools for the testing and deployment process. In IT, I require sales tools to test the APIs.

it is necessary to have two forms for testing, and I see the testing tool in MuleSoft, but in Azure, I haven't seen any testing tool. I need to test the tools for the testing and deployment process.

In IT, I need the sales tools to test the APIs.

Licensing fees are paid on a monthly basis.

The prices are comparable. It is comparable to MuleSoft, WhiteCloud, and other similar applications.

Apigee X improves the connection series by solving a different problem for me. It refers to service connections.

Apigee is something I would suggest to others. It has good documentation, is simple to install, has great support, and is a good testing tool.

I would rate Apigee a seven out of ten.

The solution is used for exposing the APIs mainly.

The organization has benefited from the development of fast, new APIs and new integration points.

The usability is one of the best aspects of the product. It's broadly used in different functional areas. There is no specific one. It's used broadly almost in all the contexts that we have.

It's easy to set up.

Technical support is helpful and responsive.

The stability is great.

We started using the solution not so long time, however, it still started from scratch. So far, we have no improvements to note.

The solution could add even more functionalities. 

I've been using the solution for two and a half years. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

We have 20 to 30 people using the solution. 

We've used technical support in the past and they were pretty helpful and responsive. 

We previously used Mashery. We switched as Apigee was working better.

It's easy to set up the solution. It's a SaaS. The deployment can be handled by just one person. It's very simple. 

We did not use an integrator, reseller, or consultant for the deployment.

I'm not sure if we've seen an ROI.

The licensing cost is quite in line with the other solutions. It depends on which perspective you see it. It could be affordable or expensive. It depends on the company. For the big companies maybe it's more affordable, for the smallest ones probably not.

There are packages that you can buy or add-ons that you can add, depending on the usage, depending on what you have to do with it.

We did look at other options, however, this solution was more fitting for the purpose that we had.

We're a customer and an end-user.

I'd advise potential new users to understand if there is a fit as a product like this is pretty much covering the same functionalities as others on the market. There are not so many huge differences. It depends on what you have to do and what your capabilities are and what your vision is. 

If you need more freedom, you can use other things like Kong or other products. Usually, all those products, at least the big players on the market, have the same functionalities. At that point, it's just a matter of questioning if the product is fitting the needs and the purpose that the company has or not. 

New users need to question what they want to achieve and how they want to achieve it, how they're structured if they're working on the cloud or if they're working on-premise. They have to make some questions about the needs, the wishes, and the setup that they want to have.

I'd rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use it for access. for example, if a third-party needs access, they can get it via Apigee.

It's good for development. 

We like that the solution offers easy integration. 

It has a good UI and is user-friendly.

The solution scales well.

It's stable. 

The solution is pretty expensive. 

I've been using the solution for around one year. I haven't used it for that long just yet.

The solution is stable and reliable. the performance is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution is quite scalable. We can expand it if we need to.

We do not have plans to increase usage at this time.

Support from Google has been good. We've had several people help us, and they have been responsive. 

Positive

The solution is mildly complex in terms of the setup process. However, it isn't too bad. 

We have five people that handle maintenance tasks. We have one manager and two developers that can support the product.

We received training from Google, which ensures we are able to deploy it properly.

The solution is expensive. You can do some negotiation which might help mitigate some costs.

We did not evaluate other products before choosing this solution. 

I'd recommend the solution to others. It is costly but good. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I use Apigee as it is an API gateway.

The live tracking API feature of the product is Apigee's most valuable component.

I don't see any problems in Apigee where improvements are required.

Apigee is not a solution compatible with public clouds, making it one of its shortcomings where improvements are required.

In the future releases of Apigee, I would like it to offer more cloud compatibility features.

I have been using Apigee for four to five years.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution.

Apigee's technical support is okay. My company did not have any issues with Apigee's technical support.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

I haven't used any other solution before Apigee. My company chose to work with Apigee since it offered an enterprise edition, making it an easy-to-maintain solution with live tracking API features.

The product's initial setup phase was not difficult.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

Apigee is a very good product since my company hasn't faced too many issues with it. The tool allows users to look into the performance metrics, dashboards, and proxy performance, which are some of the positives. On the negative side, Apigee is not a cloud-compatible tool because it serves as an API gateway and a lot of systems are connected to it, which was a bottleneck for our company to deal with since we wanted to move to the cloud.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.