Apigee Reviews

We have hundreds of backend services, APIs, that are running. We want to protect and do analysis with calling externally, internally, and all the statistics we want to track using Apigee. That is the reason we're using the API gateway.

We have seen product improvement. Initially, we didn't use much of the analytics part. Later on, we saw that as an improvement. The rate-limiting quotas are improved as well.

The analytics feature is quite good. We can look at all the statistics, how many requests coming in, how many requests going out, what type of failures are happening, what is the performance of the APIs on those features. The solution helps us to track whenever there is an issue that comes in.

The only concern overall, with the organization, is cost-wise. I believe there is already a plan, within our organization, for moving to Azure API Management. The main reason is one of the features is a cloud-based, pay-per-use. And then, because a lot of our services are moving towards Azure, why have another network of API gateway.

The testing feature is one additional feature that I see is in APIM and it is not here. We can build our own demo web service and test your proxy. That feature has been provided in APIM, not in Apigee.

I've been using the solution almost three years now.

Overall, the solution is good.

The scalability is good. Our load has improved drastically in the last three years. The traffic has been increased, and we still see a good performance overall.

Mostly developers from different teams use it. And there are administrative teams maintaining the overall solution within the organization.

The technical support is good. As a user, we report to the admin team and they work with the consultants if they are not able to resolve the issue.

I was not involved in the initial setup, but I've been told that the onsite setup was a little complex and there were a few restrictions as well.

We see a return on investment. As of now, it's good. But overall, cost wise, it is a little higher, comparative. 

For Apigee, I think licensing is on a monthly basis. The cost increases as the usage increases. It's higher than many competitors.

Azure APIM is the one option we evaluated.

From two or three years back using it to now, it's quite fast. The performance side is good.

It's a user-friendly product, it is. You can customize all you want, and the policies and the features they have are quite easy to use. Anyone can use it, drag and drop, and it supports a lot of other languages like JavaScript, non-JS, and all. 

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

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.

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.