IBM API Connect Reviews

I use IBM API Connect to make migrations with different systems. 

We have used the cloud and on-premise deployments of the solution.

The most valuable features of IBM API Connect are its performance and user-friendliness. 

Improving the documentation would be beneficial as it currently presents navigation challenges. Incorporating a step-by-step guide could facilitate the integration or migration of various systems, including databases. The existing documentation only comprises plain text, hence incorporating more interactive instructions could enhance its usefulness.

I have used IBM API Connect within the last 12 months.

We are having some issues with the stability of the solution.

I rate the stability of IBM API Connect a seven out of ten.

We have approximately four people who use this solution in my organization.

I rate the scalability of IBM API Connect an eight out of ten.

The support from IBM API Connect is good.

I rate the support from IBM API Connect an eight out of ten.

Positive

I have no prior experience using a solution similar to IBM API Connect.

The initial installation was not simple. We had some issues with the deployment but we managed step by step. It took approximately two months to complete the implementation.

We use a team from IBM that assisted us with the implementation.

I rate IBM API Connect a seven out of ten.

I think the most valuable feature is the fact that it sort of combines IBM DataPower being a security gateway with some of the features that are in IIB and IBM App Connect, to kind of build a complete integration. Also, IBM API Connect being the API gateway is extremely valuable both for internal and external consumers of APIs. Off the top of my mind, those are the big points that I would add.

For full transparency, at this point, we brought the solution in and we've used it for a couple of internal hackathons, but we haven't actually used it for any production work yet. Like any bank, it's really forcing a transformation in the sense of the whole industry related to cloud and related to connections to the outside. We're really trying to figure out, internally, how we want to define that.

Some of the other growing pains we've had is, how do we operationalize the technology in the sense of ownership internally; to say, which different groups should actually own which component and how we control the security across that. Personally, my side of the house, which is being responsible for delivering solutions on behalf of the businesses, I'm ready and anxious to get going on it. I'm very excited about the possibilities that the technology brings.

I think that some features that would be kind of cool are around the whole idea of a subscriber being able to subscribe to a plan. Not only should that plan include the number of calls per month or per week or whatever but also, I want to subscribe to a plan with an SLA, which gets into response time of an API call. If the response time in the plan that you subscribe is like 200 milliseconds with a 99.9% guaranteed delivery, then I should be able to subscribe to that plan and then be able to go into it and actually see how close I am to adhering to that.

Internally, this makes for some very interesting conversations right around going from application to application, issuing a connection and they're saying, "Hey, well, we're going to make this many calls a month and this is what we need the response time to be." You could literally say, "Well, we're hitting the SLA." Or, "We're not hitting the SLA." Externally, I think you have the same sort of commitments and when you're negotiating contracts, especially on the larger business partner connection, with the business-to-business connection conversation as well.

Given the fact that it's not operationalized, I cannot really comment too well on the stability because we haven't really had to worry about the stability yet. I'm not really in a place to know. I've heard rumors that there are occasionally some issues related to how it maintains connections with its other pair, but I don't know enough to know.

Based on the architecture, from what I've heard, it's quite scalable. It's just, bring in more nodes and away you go. My understanding is it’s very scalable.

Personally, I have not used technical support.

We did not previously use a different solution. Let's face it: This is a relatively new space and we’re a bank. Of course, we knew that the solution was going on.

I was not involved in the initial setup.

I do believe that there was an RFP process that we went through as part of the selection for this tool. I do not know which other vendors were on the short list.
Usually, our vendor selection process is quite rigid around that. Everything comes into play. Of course, there's cost but then there's, how well it's going to be supported. What does the product roadmap look like? How well does it conform to our internal technology standards? How well will it play within our environment? There's a lot of stuff there.

I think if you're working with IBM and you're looking at possibly using Bluemix now or in the future, the other thing is, if you're using IIB or you're looking at Salesforce, there are a lot of synergies related to these platforms and this tool set, so it sort of makes sense to head down this road.

Personally, if you're a small startup, you might need to evaluate the entire landscape a little bit differently, but if you're a large enterprise and you already have a pretty big relationship with IBM, I think that it makes a lot of sense.

My rating reflects the fact that it's not operationalized at this point, and that's not entirely the product’s fault. I see a lot of potential, but there are still some things that need to be there.

My company used to work with IBM API Connect for a customer in Greece to run a public sector company from whom we developed a new architecture based on API management last year for the logistics or transportation domains. For the aforementioned project, my company designed a solution based on IBM API Management for the logistics sector of a company all over Greece.

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from its ability in the area of message transformation, meaning it is very easy when you have to transform a message to XML or transfer it automatically from JSON and vice versa. The solution is very scalable. The solution works very well even if you have a small number of users. Our company also tested its use with a large number of users, consisting of more than 2,000 users, and it was very nice to use. The tool is very robust.

The administration of the user interface and the technical documentation are areas of concern in the solution where improvements are required. The solution's technical documentation should be a little bit easier to understand, and it is a traditional problem with all IBM products. The technical documentation is a bit too difficult to understand, and it is also not easy to read.

I have been using IBM API Connect for three years. I operate as an independent consultant.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

It is a very scalable solution.

The meaning of the size of the companies in Greece is very different from what it is in other parts of the world, like the UK or Germany. The tool has around 2,000 users. I don't know if 2,000 users are found in small, medium, or large enterprises, but in the UK, it is a number to describe a small business, while in Greece, it is considered a large-sized company.

I rate the technical support a six out of ten.

Neutral

I rate the product's initial setup phase a five on a scale of one to ten, where one is a difficult process, and ten is an easy phase.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model. The client with whom I work operates only on an on-premises infrastructure. My client is very demanding when it comes to operating on an on-premises infrastructure. My client is adamant on having on-premises infrastructure owing to security concerns.

I rate the product price a seven on a scale of one to ten, where one is a low price, and ten is a high price.

I rate the overall tool a seven out of ten.

We use IBM API Connect for external communication with outside partners and external companies doing business with our company. 

This solution is deployed on-premises. We are currently using Version 5.0, but we are upgrading to version 10.0, which is a cloud-based solution. 

One of the most valuable features of this solution is that it protects our backend system. We are exposing services to external parties and using this solution to protect the backend system, and to have a navigation in between. 

The installation process could use improvement. I hope that in the next release, the installation process is easier. 

My company has used this solution for at least four years. 

There have been some internal issues within the product that have caused instability.

This solution is scalable. 

API Connect is not straightforward to install. If you don't have a lot of dependencies in your organization, it will take a short amount of time. In our case, we took at least a month because of dependencies to other departments in the company. 

For our technical team, we have approximately 10 people, a combination of managers, admins, and engineers. 

We provide this solution to customers. 

There aren't any additional costs for the consumer solution. There is no cost for the consumers to use the services because we don't monetize the services. 

We have plans to upgrade from this solution. We are upgrading to ensure that we have a supported version late next year, in November or December, and are evaluating alternative solutions in the market. 

I rate API Connect a seven out of ten. This solution is stable, but maybe not the most modern product on the market. 

One valuable feature of IBM API Connect is its role differentiation between API publishers and consumers. Publishers can easily identify, create, and publish APIs on the developer portal, defining plans, packages, and potentially billing rules. Consumers, interested in specific API packages, can subscribe, and use the APIs, and the platform tracks usage meticulously, allowing accurate billing applications for API consumers based on their usage patterns.

The platform’s integration with the payment gateway needs enhancement. The setup process and support services could be improved.

We have been using IBM API Connect for three to five years.

It is a stable product. I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

It is a scalable product. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

We encounter challenges related to the availability of local support and time zones.

Neutral

We used another product for API management. However, there were several areas of improvement related to the availability of a knowledgeable and skilled support team.

The initial setup is complicated for container deployment. It is easy to maintain. I rate the process an eight out of ten.

We use the platform’s analytics feature for extracting reporting for billing purposes. It is a good feature. It offers a sandbox environment where users, such as developers or testers, can interact with and test various APIs.

In the subscription process, EVOFRO (Evaluate, Offer, Verify, Fulfill, Render, Operate) is involved, specifically during the consumer's subscription attempt. It triggers a flow that includes reviewing and approving the subscription. It helps us achieve 80% compliance with regulations for our company.

I advise customers to identify the use cases before purchasing the product. I rate it an eight out of ten.

Right now, our use cases are all internal. It's all API socialization internally. With version 10, we'd like to go externally with an actual API marketplace, however, we haven't gone there yet. 

I don't publish; I manage infrastructure. My role is to implement the infrastructure, maintain it, and enable the developers to leverage the technology.

The older versions of the solution were fairly straightforward to install.

The solution offers a pretty good SLA.

We deal a lot with technical support and typically they do help. We need them as we often can't find the documentation that would help us circumvent their services.

We've had some issues upgrading to the latest version of the solution.

The documentation could be improved. When we download a fix that was expected to be seamless to install, it wasn't. In the past, it was easy just to go to any product and download the documentation. If you had the license, you download the product, install it, look at the documentation. Only for specific cases would you have to reach out to support. Now it is like we know that, for these products, we're going to have to call or engage at some point with support. It's painful right now. It's not a smooth installation.

A hybrid cloud enablement would be very useful. We tried to stand up a gateway in IKS and we were told by support that that was not possible. Yet, the technical people, the designers of the solution, started saying, no, you can actually do it. However, they never said is supported, so I was never sure where the solution stands on hybrid clouds. 

The answers that sometimes are provided are not very comforting. If it isn't a full commitment it isn't going to work.

They need to make it a product that can be downloadable and installable and workable without having to engage with them directly.

I've been using the solution extensively for at least the last 12 months. We've been working with it since at least 2017. It's been a few years at this point.

Since we're mostly talking about Version 5, which is a very old version, I would have to say that it is not scalable. The memory gets too high and it affects operations. We had to request another server and it cost us money, even when we were doing a migration. Even if we wanted to go to Version 10 we have to still apply what is called a Fix Pack to the old version to have a separate infrastructure.

We have about 100 developers that use the solution currently.

We have to go through the levels of support. We open a ticket and then we try to engage. I have contacts that I can go directly to. However, if the documentation was better, we would need to interact with them less.

We are currently looking to change over to another vendor.

I actually did the initial setup for Version 5.0 which took a long time to install. It was easier, I think, as we're moving to newer versions. It is due to the fact that we've included Kubernetes and this style of installation that we're doing today which is a little bit more complex. 

The original was not nearly as complex as it is today. 

We're having some issues. If I go from Version 5.0 and I want to upgrade to 2018, I have to request new servers and then migrate all of the APIs. This is the same for Version 10 which wasn't a commitment, however, there was a communication that they would have an upgrade in place by the end of the second quarter and it didn't happen. We spent all 2018 to 2020 installing Version 2018. Now, we're told if we want to go to Version 10, we have to set up new infrastructure.

We tried to do the 2018 installation in three or four weeks and we handled it all in-house.

I cannot speak to an ROI.

We have an SLA we can draw from. I need to keep within certain numbers, however, I don't have a problem doing so. I can't speak to exact costs.

I haven't had a chance to compare the solution to other products yet, however, the plan is to move away from this product. We still need to do the research.

We are a direct customer and end-user. We aren't a partner of IBM.

We're not using the latest version of the solution right now. We have in production the original version - which I believe is Version 5.0. It was the original version. We worked all those years since 2018 and we're having some challenges to go to Version 10 which is the latest version.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

The most valuable feature of this solution is to have the APIs available across different verticals in the company. IBM API Connect provides that capability for us, so as to expose the services as APIs.

It provides the use of services at a faster delivery; that's the main, important thing. It is less cost-effective.

We are evaluating the current capabilities. We have other products such as the IBM WSRR and we are trying to see how it fits with the IBM API Connect. So, we are just trying to evaluate it right now.

It needs to improve so that we can be successful in the company, as well grow the API footprints in the company.

We are using it for the last six months, so we haven't yet gone into production. We are hoping it will be a very stable solution.

Right now, it's not heavily used. So, we intend to use it in the next year.

Initial setup was very straightforward and not complex.

We looked at other solutions, namely Apigee. However, we didn't choose them; we are not taking it.

We have a lot of other IBM products, so it is much easier for us to have one vendor instead of multiple sets of products.

Go for it.

We are using the IBM WSRR solution for service-oriented active services. The API Connect is for lightweight services and obviously for customization purposes. We work with IBM a lot, so they recommended to us to go with the IBM API Connect solution because it is the future. That is why we have chosen the API Connect.

The main criteria while selecting a vendor is support, i.e., after we go live and not just from the product. A stable support customer trust factor is also a very important factor and that is why we have a lot of IBM products.

Our use case for this solution, depending on the API Connect centralized team, is for registering any APIs. Once those are there, the main idea is that they have to be reusable and available like a global platform rather than just internal to your applications. API Connect does that, you register your API and it is available. Anybody who wants to use that function or that API can now go through API Connect with the current credentials and get access to your API. I'm a lead architect and we are customers of IBM API Connect. 

This product has provided us with a structured way for anybody who wants to develop any API. It has reduced the amount of time spent on engagement and involvement of the team. They should put it on the cloud and in a mode where anybody can take something like a post run or something and test an API. In that way it saves having to really engage with the source or engage teams. If I want a solution, I can just call API Connect, see that API, test it out myself, and see how it works. Just like an email, there is an API that you can use that can send an email to anybody. I then check how it works and can integrate it with my application. I really don't have to create a work order and go to the team and start engaging them. If it's there you can just started using it. 

Reusability is the biggest most valuable feature for us. The security is also a major feature in some ways because if it's in API Connect, the gateway, you're in and out, it's well organized, rather than having some internal solution where somebody has to manage the in and out. In API Connect, the certificates and all those things are managed pretty well. From a security perspective, it makes things easier. 

From an API perspective, it is pretty strong. Again, it all depends on how other teams are implementing like certificates. If you register you eventually have to request certificates which API registers, so it is secure. From that perspective, I think API Connect has a pretty decent product.

Improvements depend on your perspective and what you need the API to do. I think it has room for improvement because, for example, there's nothing to show that other teams might be dumping the same thing and you have no way of knowing if it's redundant. I feel that sometimes different versions of the same thing are put in there. Although there may be slight differences like including some extra fields, at the end of the day, you're almost dumping the same API again into API Connect. At some point the product should be able to tell you that there is already a similar API there and whether you're dumping an API that's almost identical to what is there.

I've been using this solution for three years. 

This solution is stable. 

This solution is scalable.

The technical support is very good. 

The initial setup is a bit complex regarding what you want to put into API Connect because you're giving to a centralized team that has no idea what API to take and use it for. The centralized team is just a team that has no idea what to collect from these hundred teams. You need to have an idea of what you're taking from them and what they're being used for. That's a bit of a challenge. Again, from a new development perspective, it brings a structural way of development of the future API.

I would definitely recommend trying this product. From a cloud perspective it's there, and from a management of API perspective, all that authentication authorization is quite strong. It's a complete product that you can implement and get a centralized repo of the APIs that you can use enterprise wide. If any other enterprise project comes up, it's worth checking what exists rather than automatically developing from scratch. 

The solution is very easy to use. It's not really complicated, at least for those who are already familiar with some IBM products. We didn't have a problem getting it up and running. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10.