Apigee Reviews

We are utilizing Apigee as a means to host and manage our internal APIs. This involves creating an Apigee proxy that acts as a reverse proxy and hosting it on our gateway. When external customers want to use and monetize our internal APIs, we use Apigee to host them. Additionally, for internal applications that require interaction with our existing APIs, we also host them on Apigee.

The most valuable feature of the current version of Apigee, such as Apigee Edge, is that the maintenance and scalability of the service are not our responsibility. As a SaaS platform, Google takes care of it, ensuring the system is stable. Another valuable feature is the ability to customize the platform extensively. We can add JavaScript functionality to cater to any use case that is not available out of the box.

Compared to its competitors, such as Axway AMPLIFY API Management and Layer7 API Management, Apigee could benefit from having more policies to cater to various use cases. This would reduce the need for writing custom JavaScripts. If more features come straight out of the box, we can leverage them instead of writing custom code to achieve the same functionality.

I have been using Apigee for approximately two years.

The solution is stable.

Apigee is scalable. It can handle a decent amount of traffic.

We have 15 architects and developers using this solution in my organization.

The technical support team is not good. The support is not proactive. Google is a heavyweight in the industry, its support may not be as good as that of other industry partners. It is possible that Google's market dominance may have made them complacent in terms of support.

I rate the support Apigee a seven out of ten.

The initial setup of the solution is easy. The setup is being handled by Google, you only need to request a new setup and procure a license for the solution.  Google takes care of everything else.

The current version of Apigee is not too expensive, but we are currently in talks with Google to understand their roadmap for Apigee X. However, we anticipate that with the introduction of Apigee X, the pricing will likely increase.

When comparing this solution to others, such as Axway AMPLIFY API Management Layer7 API Management, Apigee is a more stable and mature solution. Being a SaaS platform, you do not need to worry about deployment, scalability, server performance, and other related issues. However, with the upcoming release of Apigee X, there may be some constraints applied to the current version. If you choose to continue using Apigee it is a good choice.

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.

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.

It is an API gateway. It provides protection to our backend services.

The solution has improved our organization by formalizing the API interfaces. Through API specification documents, we can automate our documentation of those APIs and we can make it easier for our customers to integrate as it's a standard way of defining those APIs.

Items around the mobilization of the API interface and the ability to automate validations for our APIs are the most valuable aspects.

We have looked at MuleSoft as well, which is a competitor. MuleSoft has a richer set of integrations for an iPaaS solution. There's an IP gateway that we're using Apigee for, however, it cannot be used as an iPaaS, whereas the MuleSoft solution can be used as both an API gateway and an iPaaS. We've started talking to Google about their iPaaS solution, however, it doesn't play nice yet. 

They have an external developer platform that was a little bit painful. They do have some built-in developer tools, however, you can build an external development portal. It would be nice to have a built-in bundle that was more complete.

I've used the solution for about two years. 

I'm confident in the stability of the solution. It is very reliable and has good performance.

I'm quite confident of the scalability. I did do some comparisons between MuleSoft and Apigee, and a third one whose name slips my mind at the moment.

With Apigee, we don't have to think about scaling. There are still some limits, however, you can buy up. They have 80 million transactions a year, 80 million or 800 million, however, you can buy up if you start to exceed that. On some of the other platforms, you have to post the service yourself and you have to make sure that you were managing scale. That was one thing that is an advantage on Apigee.

There are something like 60,000 users using the solution, however, our load plan around it is more so that I don't think we've fully deployed it to the extent that we plan to. It's probably a small effect of that. The number of users that are impacted by it is probably in the order of nearly 10,000.

It's not being used as much as we would like. We're still ramping up and prioritizing people to be building around. Some of our existing technology does not traverse through it. Over time, we do plan to extend it until all of our external-facing interfaces go through Apigee.

We underutilized technical support initially. We have since engaged in a better way. There's a lot of documentation out there. They were helpful through the sales process to make sure we understood things, however, once we passed that, the support was more tactical and less strategic. We needed to go to third parties to get strategic support.

I did not previously use a different solution.

The setup itself was not complicated, however, the learning curve to integrate into our platform was way too complicated. It took over a year for us, from the time we purchased it until the time that we actually were running APIs through it. The ramp-up time took too long.

I would rate the solution a three out of five. I can't blame the vendor alone. It's also due to what I did or did not do.

We did not have enough of an implementation strategy. With the setup, there are instructions set up. Going through a setup is fine, however, knowing what to do with that setup and how it fits into a grander picture has been a journey.

The amount of staff needed for deployment and maintenance depends on the organization that's trying to deploy it. We have a fairly rigorous DevOps process, so there's somebody that is needed to manage the actual deployment of it. You'd need at least one, maybe a redundant person. Then, you need one person and a redundant person to manage the DevOps integration and to be able to build a pipeline so that you can deploy it. You also need at least one person that knows how to work in the platform to build APIs. I would say you'd probably need five or six people that really understand this to be able to deploy it.

We used two resellers, two integration partners. The first one got something going and we learned from them, however, nothing ever came out of it and it got shelved for a little bit. When we went with a second integration partner they actually helped us build an API documentation server. It's got a different name. 

It's a developer portal. They helped us build a developer portal, which is still not rolled out as it did not meet our standards. We've had to do things a little bit manually. One thing that I would say is that inside of deploying an API gateway, from not knowing anything about it, there was a big learning curve that we had to go through.

Now that I know what I know, it is a competitive product. Any of the products I would have started with I would've struggled with. There's just something about that strategy that you're talking about that is a big learning curve.

We have not been able to leverage ROI that much as we have not deployed it all the way. However, the ROI is in our opportunities. When we talk to our customers and explain what we're doing with our Apigee, their confidence in our ability to scale and secure is higher. When we don't, when we go to customers and we don't talk about Apigee or our gateway strategy, then there are many more questions that come up. It greases the wheels so to speak, on that sales process, security audits, et cetera.

It was fairly expensive. I don't know what the standard pricing is. I want to say that it's something like $80,000 for 800 million requests (approximately) a year. It's basically a full-time person cost. It's not higher than the competition. Everyone is expensive. 

With Apigee, it's all-you-can-eat up to a point. For example, you can think of it as a dining hall where you can go in and eat anytime you want for up to 500 meals. After that, you need to buy up to get another 200 meals.

We also looked at MuleSoft. I evaluated multiple solutions to determine that we would go with the choice that we chose, however, did not have experience with competitive products beforehand. Our platform was not using one.

I'm just a customer.

It's a hosted solution. It's my understanding that it gets updated by Google when it needs to be.

I'd advise potential users to do as many POCs as they can on the free version, and get their feet wet with it. There's a lot they can do with the free version. You can learn a lot by just getting out there and starting.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

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.

We use Apigee in health care, where multiple databases and applications need API. So far, there has been no standardization, but in the near future, there will be standardization towards the FHIR, which will drive interoperability and integration.

Apigee is an easy-to-use solution.

The solution’s scalability could be improved.

Apigee is a stable solution.

The solution’s technical support is good.

It is easy to deploy Apigee from one vendor, but if you are talking about multiple APIs, then it becomes complex. Then, you have to wait for the standardization efforts.

The solution’s pricing could be more competitive.

Apigee is used by one of the largest healthcare groups, which has over 50 hospitals, and each hospital has 50 to 60 applications.

I would recommend Apigee to other users.

Overall, I rate Apigee a nine out of ten.

We use the solution as a platform to integrate different APIs and provide authentication, authorization, and performance security services.

The solution's most valuable feature is its ability to integrate APIs for various industrial sectors, including telecom, banks, and multinational companies.

They should improve the solution's monitoring tools for on-premises environments. Also, they should make all the essential features available for the private cloud.

I have been using the solution for more than five years.

The solution is highly scalable. I rate its scalability as a ten.

I rate the solution's initial setup process as a seven.

The solution is advanced. It works efficiently compared to other solutions, such as MuleSoft. I highly recommend it out of all the integration platforms. I rate it as an eight.