3scale API Management vs Spring Edge comparison

"The standard deployment is very simple."

"The product is stable."

"The solution is quite lightweight, and the installation is very easy. It's like a two-click installation."

"It's good that they aren't adding a lot of features like ESP, etc. It's okay with just being a gateway."

"To me, the most valuable feature of 3scale API Management is that it lets you add a backend to the product. I also like that you can integrate it well with OpenShift clusters, making 3scale API Management a useful solution."

"The gateway is the most valuable feature because it makes it possible for us to gather all traffic into one proxy, which is a good thing."

"3scale API Management's best feature is API management."

"The most valuable features are the gateway and security features."

"The tool helps to ensure security. It helps with notifications and messaging. We have seen improvements in message deliverability."

"What I'd like to improve in 3scale API Management is its route-limiting feature. Currently, I don't know how to do that effectively on the solution, but in Kong, I know how to do it, so I would love to see route-limiting being easily done on 3scale API Management. It would also be good if there was some authentication that you could do from 3scale API Management because Kong offers that functionality out of the box. What I'd love to see in the next release of 3scale API Management is the ability to integrate more plug-ins easily onto the platform, so you'll be able to extend it, and even do customs management. If Red Hat could offer that extension where it allows the internal organization where 3scale API Management is deployed on-premise to integrate its tools on top of 3scale API Management and provide an API for that, that will make the solution very powerful."

"3scale API Management only supports restful APIs and doesn't support SOAP."

"I believe the CMS part of it has room for improvement though. That is where you write a couple of things if you want to publish your API. It's based on liquid scripting, which doesn't seem like the obvious ones to script with."

"The user experience could be better. The developer portal is too complex and hard to configure."

"What was suggested by Red Hat was a crucial part of the configuration, but when we started to ask about the supportability of this configuration, Red Hat said only some parts of the configuration would be supported."

"It would be helpful to improve the customization features so that the customer can do it based on their own needs."

"We tried to use the portal, but we decided that it wasn't enough. The content management system (CMS) is not easy to use if you want to customize things, and it's hard to get someone who has the knowledge to work with the CMS."

"The product is not that flexible for developers. It's less flexible and rigid. It's not easy to make changes or customize it."

"MuleSoft seems to have certain advantages over Spring Edge. Mulesoft covers more use cases, while Spring Edge is lightweight. The use cases mentioned revolve around integration capabilities. It can handle more integration. On the other hand, while offering some plugins for integration, Spring Edge is portrayed as more focused on communication tasks."

"The cost was around $45,000 per year."

"3scale API Management has reasonable pricing, judging from its competitor, Kong. My organization pays yearly for the 3scale API Management license, though I'm unable to give the exact figure because every single day there are new clusters deployed. I'm in charge of three to four clusters in my team, but give or take, it costs a few thousand lakhs."

"The pricing is affordable, it's cheap."

"I don't think that 3scale is very expensive."

"Spring Edge's pricing is reasonable."