Apigee Reviews

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 use Apigee every day. Because we have a backend system, we use Apigee to capture and track all of our transactions and for monitoring calls, which is the target for our client service. We then use this information to create a report and provide a price for each transaction. For this reason, we created a proxy that we use as an integration layer, like API management, which helps build applications. For that reason, each and every call goes through Apigee so that we can track and capture all of the information.

There are a few features that are quite interesting. We can provide our API developer with an API proxy to the developer portal, which comes in handy. There are also some interesting policies, like authentication where we normally provide any code and quotas and rate limit policies for protection. The administration and monitoring features are also quite useful as you can receive alerts and notifications and monitor them on a virtual dashboard. There are just a lot of security features in general.

With Apigee, we can easily monitor applications, and our core IT team informed me that installing upgrades is very simple. We also have a portal where we can share our proxies with the convenors, which is quite useful. 

When compared with other products and tools in the market like MuleSoft or other API management solutions, I see some lagging in regards to integration capacity — where we don't have all of the connectors. It's not the perfect ESB, it's only for API management solutions. For example, MuleSoft will provide you with the API management solution as well as ESB, allowing you to integrate with large, complex IT systems. So, there is some lagging there that needs to be fixed. 

The main area they should improve is the integration capability. They should have useful connectors that we can use to provide code so that we can integrate with other systems. This needs to be improved.

When compared to other products, such as MuleSoft and other tools in the market, Apigee has some lagging issues. 

Over the last three years, we haven't had any issues with the stability, both on-premise and on the cloud. It's a stable solution. We haven't experienced any error-value from the product.

Product-wise, we don't have any technical support, our IT team takes care of it. We also have a number of applications we are managing, but only two recruiters are monitoring them.

It's easy to create proxies in Apigee. Compared to other integration tools, we can quickly and easily export any APIs in Apigee, which saves us a lot of time. 

The setup was taken care of by our core IT team, I was part of the development team so all activities relating to the setup, updates, and customer service were handled by the core IT team.

We would definitely recommend Apigee. You can use Apigee to create proxies (and share API proxies with consumers), monitor calls, and provide security for particular endpoints. We have a complete telephone portal under Apigee, I would recommend it.

I would give Apigee a rating of seven or eight out of ten. The API moderation, administration monitoring, product architecture, infrastructure, and overall quality is good. The only area lagging is integration capability. 

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.

It's deployed on the cloud. There are a few hundred people in my organization who use this solution. 

It's easy to use and the security features are valuable.

I have used this solution for about three years.

It's a stable solution.

It's scalable. You can onboard multiple partners.

Setup isn't very complex.

My clients pay for a license.

We also use Amazon.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to those who want to start using it, but it depends on the requirements and automation.

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.

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.

I am API architect. We are service providers and provide API solutions to our customers.

Apigee provides out-of-the-box policies, so it is ready to use with minimal configuration to those policies. You can govern your API and manage the life cycle of the API completely with the Apigee tool.

You can use the documentation through the API portal and integrate it with the open API specification, and then design and create your API process.

When we compare Apigee with Mulesoft, we find that Mulesoft provides many out-of-box connectors to your legacy applications and it is now part of Salesforce. It was acquired by Salesforce. It has hundreds of soft connectors available and an exchange place where you can put your reusable assets. A similar kind of thing is available in Apigee as well, where developers start putting their assets which can be reused.

Right now we can create custom policies using Java scripts and other supported languages. That's the good thing. But if you are supposed to have created some APIs that are available on the market as public, it would be good if you can share it. It would give a bit more flexibility and then connect configurations that you can do on your own which are not supported by APIs.

From a connector perspective, it would be good if it could allow you to create a custom connector, or it could provide out-of-box connectors, or some in the backend. That would be great.

I have been working with Apigee almost five years.

Apigee is an excellent product.

The scalability depends on your configuration. You can make it scalable.

Other vendors are basically giving more. For example, Azure. Azure is cloud-based, so they offer many things, including client support and hosting. So if you take Azure for all your storage and hosting, then they are inclined to use their API data solution. Similarly, MuleSoft provides you many things. It is an ESB kind of service broker, so you can connect to many varieties of backends. It supports that, so they can use Mulesoft API. Apigee provides a number of out-of-the-box policies and it handles the API governance. But if are looking for an end-to-end solution, Apigee is a bit behind. But if it is combined together with Google Cloud, and if the Google cloud offerings are comparable to Azure, then probably Apigee will lead.

Technical support is very good. In my previous company we had on-premise Apigee installed. For that we reached out to customer support. It was excellent. And while deploying it to our customer side, we reach out to them, for both Mulesoft and Apigee. And it has a very good community portal. Customers have shared their experiences troubleshooting - their challenges, issues, and resolutions. It was good.

We have used Mule API, Mule API Gateway, and API Manager.

The initial setup is pretty simple.

It provides some sort of integral service communication support. We have a multiple API proxy with multiple APIs currently deployed. So if API A is calling API B, and API B is calling API C, if that left to right communication is also available in API B, for that we have to use some kind of service tool. That is also available inside Apigee.

Apigee is more of an entry level solution that does basic things pretty well, but if you want to go more customizable, you want to really look for another solution.

My general advice is, suppose you have minimal organizational and transformation requirements, and you have an all HCTP backend with no processing required, then definitely you should go for Apigee, because Apigee provides all those things out of the box. It can protect your backend from any penetration threat and you can integrate it with your identity provider for security. All those things are provided by Apigee. Suppose you have very, very little request response, it does not require much transformation. In that case, you can use Apigee. But if it requires a huge transformation and lots of calculations and business logic is involved, in that case, you have to go for where you can write your custom logic, so for that you should go for a Mulesoft kind of solution.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Apigee an eight.

We primarily use the solution as API Management, as both proxy and security.

The solution has improved our company's time to market. When we deploy a policy for a particular API, the creation of the policy and the gateway is significantly faster than what we were doing with our Layer 7 gateways. It's easier to develop the policy and to walk through the policy using the Apigee interface.

The ease of creating policies has been the most useful of the solution's features. It's a quick ramp-up time. It's easy for our support staff to implement the policies in the API management layer.

The company needs to better support webhooks. It used to support webhooks and their policies and they have since stopped. They had some issues in the product and they abandoned the support for them. It's not come back since. Webhooks are still used by some of our production partners. It would be nice to see the support for them come back. Right now, we have to pull the API instead of using a webhook to do the notification.

With Apigee, there are frequent updates, so they seem to have a very strong user base. 

There's a lot of users in Layer 7 too, but we've had some bad experience with support from the company. Stability-wise, it's hard to say. I don't think we've had any bugs associated with the gateway itself where the gateway has failed, but we've had support issues from Layer 7. 

In comparison, Google and Apigee have done a fantastic job supporting their product.

Scalability wise, I've heard from some customers that Apigee has some limitations on scalability, but we haven't experienced those as of yet.

As far as Layer 7 is concerned, it seems that the policies are very deterministic as to how the actual gateways function. Some of them have had a significant impact and we've had to scale up their clusters just to support a minimal load. Some are disappointed with the number of services that we have to engage for Layer 7, and the number of clusters we've had to create. We've had to create a pretty large cluster for supporting some applications.

The Layer 7 gateway's front end is for a high-end brand product. We have the largest loyalty program in Canada. Our PC Optimum program, for instance, uses our Layer 7 gateways. There are 14 million users that use the PC Optimum card that goes through those gateways.

The initial setup of Apigee is straightforward. Google/Apigee gives us all the information to support their private owned clouds. The interface is very straightforward to use as well. It's a lot easier than the Layer 7 product.

CA was overly complex in its configuration. CA also does significantly more as far as security and policies are concerned. It has developed a huge number of policies into their product. It's way more than what I would expect an API management product to be. It took us two months to set up the solution.

We basically took the policies from Layer 7 that we had previously created and we transformed them to policies for Apigee. That was fairly easy.

In terms of deployment, we haven't transformed totally from Layer 7 yet to Apigee. Our support is very low on Apigee right now. There's only one person that's working on Apigee currently. It's minimal. Accenture is handling the support, as they did for CA. We had about five people supporting the gateways on Layer 7.

For Apigee, we had the assistance of an integrator. The company was Accenture, and we have a good working relationship with them. They're currently supporting the platforms in many facets. The deployment was straightforward, so they didn't need to do too much.

There was no specialization or skill required for them for Apigee, but there was with Layer 7.

We looked at a couple of other vendors. We looked at offerings by Red Hat and some others. We basically looked at the market leaders.

From an enterprise point of view, our digital division had already migrated to GCP. GCP uses Apigee by default. They had selected Apigee initially. That was one factor in choosing Apigee over CA. Another factor is that it would support on-premises and it would support our Azure environment as well. The ease of use, creation of the policy, and the developer portal experience were all factors. The fact that developers could easily create the policies themselves without having to get our administration staff or engineers to actually create the policies was a big factor as well.

Right now, we are still in the process of testing the solution. We're using both on-premises and cloud versions.

CA has developed a sort-of enterprise service spot inside of their API management platform. It does interesting things with files, and it has a lot of security features that are not normally used in a majority of API calls. It's overkill. Its portal is very clunky and very difficult to set up. Its gateways and its policies are not straight forward either. It basically requires a three-day class to understand how to get in and add policies and it's not very simple to add policies into the CA Layer 7 gateway. Apigee does a way better job. 

CA is also owned by Broadcom now and when that transition happened, Broadcom did a lousy job of handing off support of that product. They basically fired everybody from CA. They left us without production support for a good part of a year. We've had CA for about 2 years and mostly we used the on-premises version, but we had a small amount on the cloud as well.

Because of these reasons, we're moving away from Layer 7 to Apigee.

In terms of advice to those considering using Apigee versus CA, I'd say they need to understand their use cases for APIs.

I would rate Apigee eight out of ten.

In comparison, I would rate CA five out of ten.