We performed a comparison between Axway AMPLIFY API Management and Microsoft Azure API Management based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two API Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features are security enforcement and throttling."
"There's drag and drop functionality so that you do not need to have a senior expert developer to make use of the tool. You can get more of your staff trained up to be able to use it as it's not overly technical."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is security."
"This platform can be highly scalable."
"In general, API governance provides a better experience for providers."
"We like the portal for documentation a lot."
"The best feature of Axway Amplify API Management is its exceptional level of security, which is highly reassuring, coupled with its remarkable capacity to handle substantial volumes of data in impressively efficient turnaround times."
"The administration tool for this solution is good."
"The solution has overall high performance."
"The stability and performance are good. It is easy to install, and it scales well too."
"I like the API Management functions."
"The initial setup is not that complex, but there are certain challenges."
"Microsoft Azure API Management has many valuable features. One is the developer portal, that's very useful for teams. The tool also provides layers of security. I also found the caching, automatic documentation, and version management functionalities most valuable."
"We're very satisfied with Azure API Management. We've had no issues with bugs, everything runs smoothly, and the connection between the cloud and the on-premise infrastructure was good."
"The integration with Azure Active Directory is a good security feature for authentication and authorization. There is multifactor authentication. You can also use all of the Azure AD features integrated with API Management."
"I have found this solution to be easy to configure, simple to use, and flexible."
"The portal still has room for improvement."
"The product shows a lack of maturity. The setup is difficult, the tech support and community are lacking, and it is not very stable."
"The installation process is a bit complex and it could be a lot simpler."
"Team management capabilities could be improved."
"Areas of improvement include marketing and enhancing the data products area by using ETIs."
"The areas for enhancement should be improving certain filters within the solution. Although they are generally functional, there are occasional problems that could be more precisely adjusted. Additionally, the solution performs well within its workload limitations, but it may not be suitable for scaling up or managing a larger volume of transactions through the gateway. To address this, it may be necessary to adopt a unique architecture rather than relying on traditional pre-packaged options."
"It would be great if they have an asset report. It's hard to get support for that."
"The API Mocking tools need to be improved."
"The documentation could be improved for the customer."
"Microsoft Azure API Management's most valuable features are the microservices we used to use. They were API callers to receive communication with the network and building system, to complete the request. The response would be through the processing system."
"The user interface needs improvement."
"It would be better if it were easier to transition to Azure from JIRA. For example, different nomenclature must be performed when you shift to Azure from JIRA. JIRA's storage, tasks, and ethics are treated differently from Azure. Here they might become functions, which is not an option in JIRA because that nomenclature difference is there. If someone has to get into the nomenclature, then there can be different tasks from clients, and here, they may be treated as functions. JIRA has sub-tasks, but sub-tasks don't exist in Azure. The nomenclature and the linking between ethics and a function and a story are different, and people may have to learn to adapt to the new nomenclature."
"Could use clearer configuration when it comes to API policies."
"An area for improvement in Microsoft Azure API Management is deployment, in particular, the deployment of versions in Oryx. The development to production instance isn't adequate for me and needs to be improved. Microsoft Azure API Management lacks automation, which is another area for improvement."
"The scalability of this solution could be improved. The volume which the API Management task service can handle needs to be improved. Cost wise, this solution could be optimized."
"The API gateway can be very complex."
More Microsoft Azure API Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Axway AMPLIFY API Management is ranked 11th in API Management with 12 reviews while Microsoft Azure API Management is ranked 1st in API Management with 68 reviews. Axway AMPLIFY API Management is rated 7.8, while Microsoft Azure API Management is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Axway AMPLIFY API Management writes "An API management solution for ESB and B2B integration between systems with security". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure API Management writes "Efficiently manages and monetizes API ". Axway AMPLIFY API Management is most compared with Apigee, Amazon API Gateway, Kong Gateway Enterprise, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager and Layer7 API Management, whereas Microsoft Azure API Management is most compared with Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Kong Gateway Enterprise and Boomi AtomSphere API Management. See our Axway AMPLIFY API Management vs. Microsoft Azure API Management report.
See our list of best API Management vendors.
We monitor all API Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
