IBM API Connect Reviews

We are using it for some applications that are useful for banking.

It is easy to use and stable.

It should be cheaper.

I have been using this solution for a couple of months.

It is stable.

It is scalable. We have around 1,000 users. We have a technical team of 10 to 20 people. They include managers and developers.

It is easy to install. It takes one or two days for deployment.

It should be cheaper. It has a yearly licensing.

I would rate IBM API Connect a nine out of 10.

The most valuable feature for me is the ability to distribute work among our API developers, so we don't have to do all the work as IBM API Connect administrators and IBM DataPower administrators. This simplifies the way our partners can access our API's.

Overall, it brings us closer to better API management in our organization. The next step for us would be to improve the whole solution by going to the cloud. That's what I'm looking at.

It simplifies development and allows us to do more for less money.

Based on my meetings at this conference, I'm satisfied with their roadmap, where they're going. Possible improvement is mainly around having more of the cloud oriented architecture bringing stability in adding new capabilities around security.

Stability has improved greatly with the latest releases. There were some struggles in the beginning. There were some components that were not stable. They weren't behaving consistently through environments when we moved stuff from development to demo to prime. I think core functionality is pretty stable but there are things on the outskirts that weren't so stable.

IBM DataPower is at the core and we can easily add stuff as we need or as our licensing allows. So I think that it's pretty scalable.

The technical support is good. We got some help from their experts.

We were using IBM DataPower without any additional layer. By adding this new obstruction layer with IBM API Connect, we're simplifying development and improving our interactions with our partners. It becomes more compatible to the industry standard having the API management system in place.

The setup is complex but we didn't expect any simple things at such a large scale. It's just too many moving parts - IBM API Connect consists of three main components and they all have to be synced up. There's a lot of setup and networking and then you have to adapt it to your own environment.

Microsoft, IBM and CA Layer 7. IBM had the most capabilities that were based on IBM DataPower and could fulfill all of our requirements, even though the timescale was longer than we expected it to be.

When considering a vendor we just go for an industry leader, making sure that their technology stack aligns with our technology stack. We look at their reputation and how good the support is with the other products and what kind of relationship we have with account managers from that organization.

You should consider how much value you can derive specifically from the solution with all the features that are available. For instance, the main value for us was in organizing the API's and splitting work among several development teams.

We've yet to realize real value in the solution. The goals that we were trying to achieve from it were to implement microservices and a lot of the features and functionality that were part of the documentation, but we haven't achieved success with it yet.

The benefits would be that we'd have a great platform for our microservices and API management. But since we haven't had a lot of success with it yet, it's been frustrating.

I would like greater stability and greater ability to actually administer the product without needing to go to technical support. It's very proprietary and support has secret passwords that they use to get into certain functions.

IBM has limited the capability for executing typical admin commands and only provide a small list of proprietary commands. Without a secret command line password, clients are limited to what they can view and administer – even in a read-only mode.

Stability is not good.

Scalability is good.

I would rate technical support fair, at best.

We weren't using a different solution. This is a new approach. We do have alternatives that we are using, including other IBM products. But we did this one more from a sales relationship, technical sales team pitch.

When selecting a vendor, reliability and experience are most important; the fact that we had experience with them. We have a lot of IBM products and we had a lot of good relationships.

I was involved in the initial setup and it was somewhat complex; medium complexity.

We didn’t look at other vendors.

Certainly look at other options that are out there and absolutely go with the latest and greatest version of the product, because there have been a lot of issues and it's going through growing pains. It's not completely mature.

• GUI-based accelerated API development
• Segregation of ownership and control for different stakeholders
• Self-service Developer Portal: a highly customizable portal based on Drupal CMS
• Security support for oAuth, basic authentication and keys
• Analytics
• High-performance solution when used with DataPower IDG. DataPower IDG can support 8K TPS per appliance
• Easy-to-implement, configurable API security and analytics
• LoopBack projects allow API creation using a datasource

This product has been designed very well and addresses many advanced use cases of API development in a collaborative environment, which are not yet available in other existing products, for example, Layer 7.

• Self-servicing portal allows users to explore APIs, create and manage keys. and manage subscriptions.
• Advance infrastructure load balancer/cluster management features
• GUI-based accelerated API development and deployments

• Production traffic monitoring features can be better.
• A few advanced API managementfeatures such as monetization and portal syndication are not yet available in the product, but are included in the product road map for the near future.
• API hosting needs a separate product (for example, DataPower) or Micro Gateway (a node js component). However, in a few cases, this can be seen as a better overall solution.
• Frequent product design changes were observed during the early stages of this product evolution; however, currently this product is very stable.
• A few minor quality issues were observed during the early stages of this product evolution; however, currently this product is very stable.

I have used it for 1+ years.

Current versions are stable. However, a few minor issues were observed during the early stages of product evolution.

No scalability issues were found.

Technical support is 9/10:

• Highly responsive
• Quarterly enhancement/bug fix releases
• Detailed product documentation

We previously used Apigee. We switched due to version upgrade cost issues and a need for performance improvement.

Initial setup is very well documented and straightforward. However, please refer to API Management experts for the most-optimized solutions.

It's available in SaaS and on-premise versions. This product comes in three offerings: Essentials, Professional & Enterprise.

As per the required API Management components, pricing and licensing might vary on a case-by-case basis.

Enables a cost-effective solution when implemented properly.

Before choosing this product, we also evaluated CA Layer 7, Akana, and Mashery.

API Connect is an easy-to-learn, very advanced, reliable, business-to-business API management product. However, understand your requirements clearly and use expert help for the most optimized yet secure solution.

The API Connect product comes with API management, developer portal, offline API development toolkit and a node js component called Micro Gateway. Licensing can differ for these components.

From an API development features perspective, API Connect and API Management might appear significantly different. However, inherently both products exhibit a very easy, refined and mature API implementation process. I would personally recommend to everyone to use API Connect over API management.

We use this solution for external API spotters and API.

It helped us mainly with the corporation, ownerships with other partners.  

It makes it possible to create close companies with processes to develop mutually, and digital solutions. 

This is our main benefit.

The suite itself is what I find valuable. It has all of the tools that are needed for the specific mission. I have the portal, I have the run time and the security.

The solution itself is valuable.

The automation and the simplicity could be improved.

They could also have more frequent additions.

I would like to see the simplicity improved to make it very easy to deploy and to make it very easy for the regular developer, not an API special developer.

I would like the developers to be able to develop APIs and to make them more accessible.

I would also like to have a DevOps built-in process that is very fast and easy.

The monitoring suite should be ready-made and not have to tailor-make my home.

I have been working with IBM API Connect for three years.

It's a very stable solution.

Our work is very basic. We have not dealt with scaling.

It's IBM, and they take time. I am from Isreal and the support is always from abroad. It's a heaving process.

At times when we have issues and have decided not to turn to support since we know it will take time, and the effort is not as understandable, but we will have a solution at the end of it.

Technical support is an area that needs improvement.

The installation is pretty complex. 

We must also take into consideration that I am referring to the on-premises installation, which by definition is much harder, and relatively speaking it is a bit complex.

It is quite an expensive product.

I would rate IBM API Connect a seven out of ten.

We use IBM API Connect before API publishing for enterprises. If we have a big enterprise and they want to publish their data for the public, we use API connect.

IBM API Connect is a good product, and their technical support is excellent.

The initial setup and installation could be easier. The price could also be better. I would like to see monetization of support, a monetization billing engine, and monetization within the product in the next release.

I've been using IBM API Connect for two years.

IBM API Connect is stable.

IBM API Connect is scalable.

Technical support is excellent.

The initial setup and installation aren't easy. It's complex.

One member of our team implements this solution.

IBM API Connect could be cheaper. We pay for the license yearly.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give IBM API Connect a ten.

We currently use it as our single point of the security catalog for the APIs that the bank has.

The developer portal has been the most useful feature.

Like any typical IBM infrastructure setup, you need to learn to set it up yourself. It's not one of those simple zip files or an archive unzip and you're up and running in some few minutes. Knowledge to set it up is key. 

A more user-friendly portal could be helpful. Something you won't really get lost in. For example, other APIs make it so easy to do a couple of things from the portal, not at the management portal itself. Maybe if IBM can improve on that, it would be most helpful.

The system has not been put through real stress. We use it for our third-party APIs and the connection and so that's not too much stress. I can't give a metrics on its stability. And then at the point of setup, we were already getting a bit of redundancy.

We have knowledge of how to add additional APIs to it. With that, if I were to measure on a scale of one to five, I'll put that at four out of five in terms of scalability. Four meaning it's pretty easy. Once you have the knowledge it's pretty easy to add new APIs to your catalog, create a new catalog, etc. As to if the infrastructure itself is it scalable, I'd put at a two because I remember while we were trying to set up a redundancy we wanted to add an additional protecting node and it took us a day or two to get our head around that.

In our country, there are regulations that don't allow us to really engage and that requires us to go through a proxy to IBM. I can't evaluate their technical support since I have never used them.

The initial setup is complex. Deployment takes about two weeks for different portals. The knowledge takes up time and then there are some other internal processes, but if I were to take out the internal process I would put implementation at about a week.

The way our organization is set up, we have a team that is responsible for infrastructure setup. We also have a team that is responsible for activation setup. So, a three-man team should be able to do the setup.

During the setup, we had to get some professional help from IBM itself. We have people that got trained on the solution, and in terms of integration, they got trained on it. And so they will have knowledge on how to create new integrations and new APIs on it and how to expose APIs on it going forward.

Before choosing IBM API Connect, we looked at 3scale API and API G-Box.

Infrastructure setup was a bit painful. Knowledge up-take was not too painful if you are not doing anything complex. But when you start getting into complex APIs then maybe you need some bit of patience if you decide to use this solution.

At the end of the day, it's a great product, I can't fault it for now. We haven't extensively used it, so I really can't say how it would perform over time, or what kind of issues it would have if it was enterprise-wide. I can't find fault with it, for now, it's doing good.

I would rate the solution of seven and a half out of ten.

My point of view is a bit stiff because I'm a developer. I don't mind going through some tech rigors. But looking at it from a more general standpoint, I don't think anybody wants to go through the process of some technical learnings. In terms of the knowledge base, it's not too fun for developers. In terms of setup, it's almost definitely not fun. Usage is working well and based on the architectural principles we are already facing some bit of redundancy on that.

We are using this solution to handle our open API Connection.

Our company mainly has cooperation with institutions, and we are hoping that with this product, in the future we can create easy connections to other institutions who also implement open API.

The most valuable features are stability and security.

The developmental process is not quite user-friendly.

IBM should improve the customization of the API Connect.

The price could be reduced, it's expensive.

I have been using IBM API Connect since August. It is not in production, we are still in the developmental stages.

We have just finished the procurement process.

IBM API Connect is a stable solution.

It's a scalable solution.

The number of users is not relevant. It is based on the number of transactions, not users.

We plan to continue using this product in the future.

IBM technical support is good.

Previously, we didn't use another solution. This is the first API management product that we have used. 

The initial setup is straightforward, and the installation is easy.

We have a team of ten technicians to deploy and maintain this solution.

It's an expensive product.

I would rate IBM API Connect an eight out of ten.