Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Apigee vs MuleSoft API Manager vs webMethods.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
7.2
Apigee enhances security, centralizes management, and boosts ROI, benefiting larger organizations through seamless integration and new revenue opportunities.
Sentiment score
6.9
MuleSoft API Manager improves reusability and efficiency by automating processes, expediting development, and simplifying maintenance, enhancing organizational value.
Sentiment score
7.1
webMethods.io delivers rapid ROI through cost savings, reduced downtime, and increased productivity, depending on specific implementations.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.3
Apigee's technical support is mixed, with varying response times and effectiveness, improving for high-priority issues and larger customers.
Sentiment score
7.5
MuleSoft API Manager's support is praised for responsiveness and expertise, though premium charges and priority confusion occasionally occur.
Sentiment score
6.6
webMethods.io's customer service is praised for responsiveness, but users note occasional delays and desire improved technical support communication.
They are responsive and provide assistance even during production issues.
The customer service and support are cooperative and effective in providing insights and solutions during challenges.
Our enterprise pays for a special success program, which provides priority support.
They can be slow in addressing security vulnerabilities.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.6
Apigee excels in scalability with features for high demand but requires careful configuration and may face cost challenges.
Sentiment score
7.1
MuleSoft API Manager is scalable and flexible, yet concerns exist about its cost, setup complexity, and hardware demands.
Sentiment score
7.2
webMethods.io is praised for its scalability in cloud and on-premises environments, with some licensing constraints noted.
Adding extra Cassandra databases is complex.
Vertically, scalability is fine, however, I have not expanded horizontally with the product yet.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.1
Apigee is praised for stability and reliability, with minimal disruptions and high performance, especially post-Google acquisition.
Sentiment score
7.9
MuleSoft API Manager is reliable and stable, though it may face minor scaling issues with JMS or Kubernetes.
Sentiment score
7.6
webMethods.io is generally stable and reliable, with minor issues in specific modules and cloud version maturity needed.
Apigee is stable, and we have had the system running on Apigee servers for more than four years without any stability issues.
There was an issue when trying to implement a request-reply pattern using JMS, which was not functioning as expected despite being documented.
There are some issues like the tool hanging or the need for additional jars when exposing web services.
 

Room For Improvement

Apigee needs improvements in integration, usability, support, and hybrid deployment, with enhanced monitoring, caching, and identity provider integration.
MuleSoft API Manager struggles with usability, integration, pricing, migration, and seeks improvements in security, automation, and scalability.
webMethods.io needs clearer documentation, better scalability, intuitive interfaces, and improved integration and cost-effectiveness for enhanced user experience.
Apigee should also incorporate these capabilities, especially in the on-premises version.
Apigee only allows validation of transactions up to a four-hour period, which requires manual hovering over the date and time.
Analytics is one of the areas needing enhancement, specifically more visibility and control over traffic to improve capacity management and high availability.
Introducing features related to auto governance without manual effort would make the API Manager smarter and more efficient for enterprises with complex landscapes.
Managing the cost of MuleSoft, particularly the billing model based on the number of active cores/threads, has been challenging.
A special discount of at least 50% for old customers would allow us to expand our services and request more resources.
 

Setup Cost

Apigee is costly, ideal for large enterprises, with pricing based on usage and deployment, starting at $100,000/year.
MuleSoft API Manager is often seen as costly, with pricing per core impacting expenses and necessitating growth planning.
Enterprise buyers find webMethods.io costly but valuable, offering flexibility and comprehensive solutions, particularly beneficial for large-scale enterprises.
Apigee is high-priced, suitable for large enterprises where the benefit aligns with the cost.
Apigee's product cost is quite high compared to other products.
Apigee is costlier compared to other solutions.
The cost for using MuleSoft is approximately $500,000 USD per year.
MuleSoft is typically more expensive compared to using Java or Spring Boot APIs hosted in containers.
 

Valuable Features

Apigee excels in API management with strong security, scalability, usability, and robust analytics, offering a rich developer experience.
MuleSoft API Manager excels with robust development tools, security, scalability, integration, and analytics for efficient API management.
webMethods.io excels in seamless integration, user-friendliness, robust security, and scalability, offering efficient tools and reliable management for diverse needs.
It provides all the necessary capabilities for current technologies, enabling communication and translation between protocols, along with supporting stringent security features.
Apigee's analytics capabilities aid in monitoring and optimizing APIs, which are also beneficial for our operations.
We rely on Elasticsearch to monitor traffic, which provides high visibility and control and surpasses Apigee in certain features.
MuleSoft's ability to connect to third-party monitoring platforms like AWS, Datadog, and Elastic makes operational analysis more efficient.
We can achieve complex requirements using MuleSoft's capabilities without excessive development time.
It facilitates the exposure of around 235 services through our platform to feed various government entities across the entire country.
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the API Management category, the mindshare of Apigee is 14.2%, down from 15.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of MuleSoft API Manager is 4.7%, down from 7.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 2.1%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
API Management
 

Featured Reviews

ShawkyFoda  - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides high visibility and control with good traffic monitoring
Analytics is one of the areas needing enhancement, specifically more visibility and control over traffic to improve capacity management and high availability. The replication process between Master and Slave for disaster recovery takes too long. Dependencies on analytics impact the performance of the user interface, which should be separate. The complex setup process on-premises, especially with multi-node installations, could also be improved. Additional control in product declarations, based on operations like POST and GET, is needed.
Dipanjan_Nandi - PeerSpot reviewer
Valuable testing stubs and policy enforcement with room for better security and cost management
From an API management perspective, MuleSoft's API Manager is not as powerful as some other tools available. Features like monetization and advanced security, which are present in Apigee, are missing. I also want the API Manager to be used as a separate product apart from MuleSoft's other integration solutions. Additionally, the licensing cost is high, and many clients are looking to switch due to this.
Michele Illiano - PeerSpot reviewer
Can function as an ESB along with the core product, with decent integration of message protocols
I have noticed that webMethods ActiveTransfer has had problems when handling large files. For example, when we receive (and perform operations on) files that are larger than about 16 MB, the software starts losing performance. This is why, for most customers who have to deal with big files, I suggest that they use a product other than ActiveTransfer. I would like to note that this problem mainly concerns large files that undergo extra operations, such assigning, unassigning, or file translation. When these operations take place on large files, ActiveTransfer will use up a lot of resources. Within the product itself, I also believe that there is room for improvement in terms of optimization when it comes to general performance. I suspect that the issues underlying poor optimization are because it is all developed in Java. That is, all the objects and functions that are used need to be better organized, especially when it comes to big files but also overall. webMethods ActiveTransfer was born as an ESB to handle messages, and these messages were typically very short, i.e. small in size. A message is data that you have to send to an application, where it must be received in real-time and possibly processed or acknowledged elsewhere in the system as well. So, because it was initially designed for small messages, it struggles with performance when presented with very large files. All this to say, I suggest that they have an engineer reevaluate the architecture of the product in order to consider cases where large files are sent, and not only small ones. As for new features, compared to other products in the market, I think Software AG should be more up to date when it comes to extra protocol support, especially those protocols that other solutions have included in their products by default. Whenever we need to add an unsupported protocol, we have to go through the effort of custom development in order to work with it. Also, all the banks are obligated to migrate to the new standards, and big companies are all handling translations and operating their libraries with the new protocol formats. But webMethods ActiveTransfer doesn't seem to be keeping up with this evolution. Thus, they should aim to be more compliant in future, along the lines of their competitors such as IBM and Primeur.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Management solutions are best for your needs.
848,989 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
22%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Insurance Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

How does Apigee differ from Azure API Management?
Apigee offers both cloud-based and on-prem options while Microsoft Azure API Management currently only offers a clou...
Which is better - Apigee or Amazon API Gateway?
Amazon API Gateway is a platform that supports the creation and publication of API for web applications. The platform...
How does Kong Enterprise compare with Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager?
The Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager was designed with its users in mind. Though it is a reasonably complex piece of sof...
How does Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager compare with Amazon API Gateway?
I have found that Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager is the best integration tool out there for API management. It is easy...
What do you like most about Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager?
The most valuable features of the solution for securing APIs stem from the tool's ability to allow users to deploy po...
What do you like most about Built.io Flow?
The tool helps us to streamline data integration. Its BPM is very strong and powerful. The solution helps us manage d...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io is expensive. We have multiple components, and you need to pay for each of them.
What needs improvement with Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io needs to incorporate ChatGPT to enhance user experience. It can offer a customized user experience.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Anypoint API Manager
Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Adobe, advance.net, Amadeus, AT&T, Bechtel, Belly, Burberry, Chegg, Citrix, Dell, eBay, Equifax, GameStop, First Data, Globe, HCSC, Intralinks, Kao, Meredith, Mitchell, Orange, Pearson
Coca-Cola, Splunk, Citrix, UCSF, Vertu, State of Colorado, National Post, TiVo, Deakin, LLS, Oldcastle Precast, ParcelPoint, Justice Systems, Ube, Sumitomo Corporation, PacificComp, University of Witwatersrand, Groupe Initiatives, Camelot, Panviva
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Google, Amazon Web Services (AWS) and others in API Management. Updated: April 2025.
848,989 professionals have used our research since 2012.