IBM DataPower Gateway Reviews

It is used for simple integrations that require high speed, and you need to use it in a cluster if you want it to be highly available.

For me, its most valuable features include:

• the fact that it's high-speed
• its ability to be remotely administered via an API
• the fact that it can deal with multiple protocols
• it's very quick to make changes to the setup.

Care needs to be taken when applying firmware upgrades, as they often fail.

Also, the components that they include in the product that are, in fact, a WTX, really need to be removed from the product because they tend to fail. It's got some native capabilities and it's gotten some imported capabilities and you need to know the history of the product to understand the difference between the two. Most notable is the COBOL copybook handling, which is really straight out of WTX. It's poorly supported and often leads to failures.

I have been working with IBM WebSphere DataPower for about a decade.

Like all things, it does fail, but if it's in a cluster you can have continuous availability. If the cluster is set up properly, it has multiple network ports so you can have redundant network connections. If a component does fail — meaning one appliance can fail, and they have failed — it's unlikely that all of them will fail together. So a minimal configuration of two appliances in each of the two sites is a good idea. Or you could be using the virtual alternatives on a cloud in multiple zones or on multiple clouds.

It's horizontally scalable.

When using it as a certain kind of pass-thru, I've measured it to 6,000 transactions per second. If you're using it in a request-reply pattern, that comes down to about 600. The 6,000 was the limit on the testing equipment. It wasn't the limit on the product.

Technical support is becoming rare because it's an old product.

I've used Message Broker from IBM, Oracle Service Bus, and TIBCO.

DataPower has the advantage in that it's more limited in capabilities than the other products, so it's harder to accidentally write applications as part of your integration. If you follow strict patterns then your business logic will stay in the applications and your integration logic will only be on the DataPower. Like all devices, you can actually go to extra effort to put application logic into the DataPower, but that just ruins the device for its intended purpose.

The setup is simple; it's an appliance.

All the products I've used could be priced lower. Perhaps with the exception of something like SnapLogic, they are very expensive.

TIBCO is expensive. It is reliable but it takes longer to develop and deploy. I haven't had much experience with their new microgateways, which may, in fact, provide more value. Oracle is expensive and probably more fragile. Message Broker is quite expensive but quite reliable.

If you've got it, you should use it. If you haven't got it, you probably should be looking at newer products such as SnapLogic.

It's a high-speed device. If you need an appliance on-premise, that would be the way to go. If you need to migrate something that's on-premise to the cloud, you could go to the virtual. If you're doing something new, you probably wouldn't touch it.

We use the solution specifically for its token validation and error-handling features.

They should improve the solution's clustering features. Also, they should include algorithms for correct load balancing. In addition, they should provide integration with MQ logs. We require proper documentation to understand the solution's parameters as well.

I have been using the solution for two years.

The solution's scalability needs improvement.

The solution's initial setup was straightforward.

It is an expensive solution.

I rate the solution as an eight. 

The most valuable features for our business include the ability to monitor and log data transactions and handle multiple request at an enterprise level. We also receive good support from IBM.

The IBM community does not have much engagement from the IT community in Saudi Arabia and developers for this solution are difficult to find. 

They have to enable the location subscribe using Message Queue which could be improved.

I have been using this solution for two years. 

This is a very stable solution. 

This solution is not scalable for our environment.

Technical support from IBM is good. 

Neutral

IBM have their own model and professional services. If we pay for IBM DataPower, we have to pay additional fees for the professional services from the IBM team.

We are planning to move away from IBM to use a different system for a number of reasons including security concerns, authorization, authentication and to save costs for the organization.

I would recommend those considering using this solution to get a partnership with IBM rather than being a regular customer. It is also important to build the required skill sets for employees within an organization.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten. 

Initially, we used IBM DataPower XI52, but have since switched versions. The operating system versions were different. We are using the appliance version.

We primarily use the solution for the integration and security gateway for opening the services outside company.

The solution is robust. We use the appliance version, which comes with good security features and trouble shooting tools. So, we are happy with the IBM DataPower. We are currently evaluating the CA product, especially as it concerns the API management. As such, we may choose to use the API management modules of the CA Gateway.

For the workloads that are not too high, appliance is a little bit expensive. This is especially true in the development test and UAT environment, in which we can use the virtual version of the product. For live environments, we can continue to use the appliances. 

We have been using IBM DataPower Gateway for eight years.

The appliance is a bit on the expensive side for the workloads that are not too high. This is especially true in the development test and UAT environment.

Improvements have already been made to the solution. For example, we wish to use the virtual version of the DataPower next year and will likely do so with all of our applications within a few years.

When it comes to the deployment, we use the appliance version of the product with IBM DataPower. Yet, with other applications, are cloud-based. 

I rate IBM DataPower Gateway as a nine out of ten. 

We use it for API Connect for gateways and we use the backend as an MQ. I implement it for our clients.

The API Connect gateway service and the SQL injection features are good. 

Scripting needs improvement. It's hard for our customers. 

I have been using this solution for the last two years. 

It is stable.

It is scalable. It's used daily for every backend server.

Our customers are primarily enterprise-sized. Our enterprise companies use this product. 

I haven't contacted their support. 

We did not previously use a different solution. 

The initial setup was straightforward as it's on-premise. Cloud is trickier than on-premise. But deploying the containers is difficult. 

I did the deployment myself. It around one hour. If you want to do clustering it will take two to four hours. 

If you want additional features, you will need to pay more. 

It is a good solution. It's more expensive compared to competitors. IBM charges more for its products. Anybody can use it as their security device and as their multi-protocol handling device. It is compatible with IBM products. 

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

In the next update, I would like to see better development features and more scripting options. 

The whole purpose of this product is to provide high speed and high performance. From a security perspective, it takes care of everything including attacks such as cross-site scripting. Some of our services require that DataPower be implemented because of payment and other issues. To me, it's a must to have.

I like all of the features in this product and it does what it's supposed to do.

IBM is a good company and they keep working on it. The keep on enhancing it and make sure that new features are available when the legacy version goes away.

New users just starting with this product find it a little complex or difficult to use, compared to other products such as AWS. Making it more user-friendly would be an improvement.

I have been using the IBM DataPower Gateway for about 20 years.

This is a very stable product and it is a hard appliance, as opposed to software.

You can scale it easily by adding on appliances as you like.

All of the people in the organization use it from administrators to end-users. All of the applications use it.

The technical support is good, although it depends on your deal with IBM and the engagement that you have. Offering technical support is how companies like IBM and Oracle make money. When you pay more money and you're a big client, you are dealt with properly.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

For me, the initial setup is easy. If there is any trouble then IBM support is always available.

As things move more toward the cloud, things may change. People may rely less on DataPower versus cloud-based solutions such as AWS.

This is a good product, although it depends on what country you are working in. My advice is to always seek out IBM support when you have a problem.

Overall, this is a good product, and if it were more user-friendly then it might be a perfect score.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

DataPower is normally used as an ESB. It's mainly used to act as a mediator or act as a middleware for developing systems to send messages for ESB. We are just using DataPower as an ESB. 

I like the fact that it remains on a USB.

The performance is good. It's been very stable. 

The product is easy to integrate.

We are always looking for more features wherein it could be easily integrated with cloud applications. We are looking for either a cloud solution or a cloud integration option.

We use it from a maintenance point of view and therefore do not necessarily need extra features. 

The solution could be more user-friendly.

While it's been used in our organization for somewhere around ten years, I've personally used it here for three or four years or so. 

The solution is very stable. The company has used it for a number of years now without any issue. It's quite reliable. 

I'm not sure if the solution is scalable. I've never tried to scale the solution.

I'm not aware of any plans at this time that would include increasing usage. 

I haven't heard of any issues with technical support. They are okay. We are largely satisfied with their level of service. 

Previously, we were using the webMethods server.

I wasn't a part of the installation process. I can't speak to how easy or difficult the process was. 

We do have one or two members on the team who actually work in both DevOps and development. If needed, they can do the deployment as well. They are engineers. 

It is a licensed product. We pay for it on a yearly basis.

We'd like a solution that can integrate better with the could. However, right now we don't want to invest in that effort to evaluate certain products.

While I don't have the specific version number on hand, I know that we are using one of the latest releases. 

We hardly work with the DataPower part. It's only whenever we use it as an ESB; it supports the design features of an ESB. 

I'm pretty neutral on the product. I would not discourage or encourage others from using it. I don't use it too much myself. 

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. 

I used it on-premises to secure the BUS, the integration layer. It helped us to comply with the GDPR, and, in Brazil, LGPD. It helped us to be compliant with the local regulations, local law as well.

The solution's most valuable aspects were mainly the XML Firewall and the access management as well as the IAM in DataPower which we used to control and test the usage.

The scalability of the solution is good.

The solution has been quite stable over the years.

The customization of the solution isn't as straightforward as we would like it to be. There should be more integration capabilities and it should be much easier to integrate other products.

The product should be more adapted to the DevOps process.

The product was very sensitive to heat. The hardware had a hard time if it wasn't cool enough.

The initial setup is quite difficult. You need to be well-trained in the solution in order to understand the process.

I've used the solution over the past five or six years or so. It's been a while. However, we actually stopped using it about five or six months ago, in November of last year.

The solution was very stable. We had no issues with it in that sense. It didn't crash or freeze and there were no bugs or glitches.

We found the scalability to be quite good. If a company needs to expand the product, it can do so.

We had about 30 developers and 1,000 end users on the solution.

Technical support is pretty good, once you get past the initial interaction phase. They are quite helpful and responsive. We're quite satisfied with their level of support.

The initial setup is pretty complex. It's not exactly straightforward. To develop and deploy the integration, it's necessary to have two professionals for the integration, which is a bit complicated.

I can't recall how long the deployment process took, as, by the time I arrived at the organization, the implementation had already happened. I mostly dealt with integrations.

I worked with the solution at my previous company. I'm not sure which version of the solution we were using.

I'd advise companies considering the solution to ensure they have some well-trained professionals to administrate the product. However, it is quite easy to architect the solution.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.