Layer7 API Management Reviews

Live API Creator.

The simple REST based APIs can now be delivered in hours which took days previously.

The product shouldn’t require to be connected to a server for doing development.

Six months.

No.

No.

Good.

No.

Very easy.

Not sure on that front.

Mashery and IBM.

Go ahead. A very good product and a market leader in its segment.

I'd say the API gateway that routes traffic in REST-to-SOAP conversions is a feature we find most valuable. SOAP is a type of web service, and REST is another.

It allows you to much more rapidly expose enterprise services to front-end applications, such as mobile and web.

The products developer portals can be better. It needs a better look and feel.

Also, the user experience for developers to discover and develop APIs needs work.

We've been using it for two years.

It's very good.

We've just started so there's not a lot of traffic yet.

They've been responsive, but they're pricey.

This is the first API gateway product we’ve used, and we looked for a vendor who has a reputation for establishing long-term partnerships.

Initial setup was pretty straightforward.

We also looked at Axway, IBM, and Mashery. We went through a long evaluation and CA's number one strength was the built-in security management features.

As part of your evaluation, make sure that the companies can set up a proof of concept to check real situations.

It's a purveyor of tools for managing and securing APIs. It is flexible in how it creates custom policies and uses builds with impressive methods.

We implemented few Layer7 project to various organizations. Most of them just use it as a 'proxy' for policy checking. For example, limit the number of access attempts on specific page from the same IP for a specific duration.

Other clients use it for logic flow, to create a workflow integrated with the Australian government's MyGov framework, which is beyond just security checks.

Some of the common useful functions/assertions (e.g., JWT encoding/decoding) are only available in other CA products. The client needs to purchase and install those products in order to make it available for Layer 7. I don't think it is justified to maintain another product that is not really needed, in order to have just one function. If those common, useful functions could be part of the core Layer7 product, that would be great.

Provide complete documentation with examples of usage on its build in assertion/function.

Easier to find documents (e.g., cluster setup).

We have been using this solution for two years.

• When more than one developer is working on separate policies, it is hard to export, import, and merge the policies to other parties
• When migrating to different environments
• When integrating with SVN/Git: This is not well documented

There were no stability issues. It is a very stable and mature product. So far, there have not been many complaints from clients regarding the stability.

Scalability performance has always been an issue. It behaves slowly when communicating with Windows-based servers (e.g., F5 load balancer or DB server, as compared to when communicating with a UNIX server.)

Customer service provides good and fast responses. They help a lot when problems occur. They always respond in a timely fashion.

Technical support provides good and fast responses. They help a lot when problems occur. By the way, the forum is also helpful for self-service.

We didn't use other solutions before this one.

The setup was simple, as it comes with the OVA file. It reduced a lot of time and problems in the deployment. The main focus is on integration with client's exiting infrastructure, instead of setting up Layer 7.

We are the vendor. I have worked on this product for more than two years and implemented it in at least three organizations.

We are the vendor and we implemented it for clients. We do not use it for ourselves. We are not aware of the ROI.

The pricing and licensing issues are done by other staff members. I have no idea on how much it costs or what the pricing structures look like.

I believe the company already did a lot evaluations with other similar products.

We had a test version, which was more of an on-prem version, and we also had some on the Docker for a live API creator. 

We are a security service company, and we provide a lot of solutions in that space. We were just trying to have a frictionless authentication product, so we were working on that. We were looking for a Gateway that can serve in an API, and we've already got an open-source solution.

We loved the portal part the most, which had monetization and showed how people were using the stuff. It is a good product as a whole and has a lot of microservices and granular features.

The delivery is bulky in terms of implementation. Its price could also be better. It is a very good product as compared to CA API, Google API, and WSO2 API, but its price is high.

From the cloud-native perspective, some new features need to be added. It could also be made simpler to implement.

We have been using this solution for four to five years.

Technical support was okay. We were getting good support. We had access to the portal, and the support was good enough.

It was a little complex initially. We struggled a bit initially to understand this solution, but later on, it was okay. I do not exactly remember the issues, but initially, our team was facing a lot of problems in terms of virtualization.

It was very high at that time. We are a Broadcom CA partner, and we got it only for testing purposes. We didn't pay anything for it.

I would recommend this solution to others. This is one of the good solutions for microservices and APIs and for people who need to go the digital way. There are a lot of other solutions that are coming into the market, and the infrastructure landscape is changing.

I would rate Layer7 API Management a six out of ten.

We use CA API Management to publish APIs for secure and fast integration with customers and partners.

It helps to improve customer satisfaction. When customers need to integrate with our platform, they are able to self-serve by using the online documentation and tool and then test their integration independently in a sandbox environment. Once the testing is complete they can request the switch to production.

It provides us with a resilient solution and robust policy configuration. It is able to withstand the number of API calls and handle different API requirements to secure, transform, log, and track API usage patterns.

They should incorporate deeper monitoring features into the solution to make the offering more complete. Doing so would help to showcase traffic patterns and usage to better engage customers and partners proactively. It would also help with API management and capacity planning.

It is a very resilient solution.

No issues.

Technical support is very knowledgeable and helpful.

The initial setup was somewhere between straightforward and complex, requiring an intermediate level of effort on our part due to our particular requirements. Otherwise, the solution is relatively straightforward to set up.

Subscription licensing and pricing are competitive with other solutions.

Axway API Management Plus and Apigee.

Familiarise yourself with its policy management to match your requirements for API management and governance.

To protect the web services, security, authentication; protect against any kind of attacks from external sites.

We have been using API Gateway for four years and we have huge class actions, like 600 parts per second, and we have not seen any issues as of now. It's stable.

Security.

We get a lot of class actions, payloads, which have real security requirements, like personal identification information. So we need to protect all of this information, make sure it is secure. 

Also, we can handle the huge class actions we get from different clients.

It really benefits us a lot because, since we are maintaining financial information, personal identification information, we need to protect the customers' data as well as the clients' information. We can encrypt the payloads and decrypt the payloads and do SSL authentication. We can also store the files in the Amazon bucket with the encryption file.

We're integrating the cloud. I would like some more integration of cloud capabilities.

Regarding stability, we have not seen any issues as of now. It's a more stable product.

Scalability is very good.

We haven't had any issues. It's more stable. We didn't even have to touch anything.

It's a more stable product and we have very good support from technical point of view, but not from a professional point of view. We have some issues with Profession Services. But technical are always good, they support us as quickly as they. They give us solutions for customers, which is really helpful.

We were using an IBM product. We switched because we had some constraints, technical issues, support issues, and some other issues like use cases.

I developed the PoC and then moved it to production.

The setup is not complex, and we got very good support from CA technical support and Professional Services. I felt the technical support was really good compared to the Professional Services.

We did evaluate other vendors but we finally chose API Gateway.

In general when we are picking vendors, the most important criterion is support. When they can really help us we feel more confident.

I give it a 10 out of 10 compared to other products. I would definitely recommend CA API Gateway.

The primary use case would be services for APIs that we are going to expose either internally, within the enterprise, or at the outside edge of the enterprise.

Most valuable might be the security assertions, the policy assertions that are able to be bound somehow to the APIs.

We are a company with a rather complex process when it comes to integration of applications. Our expectation - we are only about to get this product into  a productive state so we are not using it productively at the moment - so the expectation is that it will simplify the on-boarding of either internal or external developers when they are using our APIs.

The solution is divided into their Gateway and to their Developer Portal components. For the Gateway component, our expectation was that it is provided as a Docker image, but it turned out that it was not supported in production up to the version that we are currently using. But the next version is obviously provided as a complete containerized version for production, which is quite good.

On the other hand, the Portal provides some questions so to speak, at the moment, because as we decided on the product last year, at the end of 2016, and it turned out that CA completely rewrote the Portal solution and the current version of it is not at the level of the functionality of the previous 3.5 version. That's quite a problem for us because we expected some functions in the Portal which are currently not available. Unfortunately, the new version is also not being introduced here at CA World, so I'm somewhat doubtful as to whether it will be provided this year. So it will probably be available only next year.

We are not in the production state at the moment so I cannot say anything about its stability.

We have quite good support by the guys from sales support so far but, as I said, as we are not in production yet, we cannot evaluate the normal support services.

It's a completely new solution for us as we were not dealing with REST-based APIs up to that point, and internally we are used to using SOAP Vitsa-based web services instead, as the major application technology. Now it's more and more moving to the REST-based approach with some kind of mircrosource architecture concepts that are being introduced, so we need to look for another solution or some kind of add-on to a existing integration infrastructure.

I was not directly involved but I was on the side getting feedback from the guys who were doing the real set up. It was a mixture out of straightforward implementation or installation and rather complex stuff. We're dealing with a specific installation image that was due to the fact that we were using specific combination of hardware, software and operating system.

Without naming them, they are the top contenders in the well-known ratings, so the ones that you find there were used as a basis for evaluation and, from then on, we did some deep-dives into the functional capabilities of these products and then decided on a shortlist. Those vendors were then were evaluated by our procurement concerning the financial aspect of the old stuff.

When considering the most important criteria when selecting a vendor, of course there are all kinds of functional criteria according to the product that we are evaluating. On the other hand, it's important, of course, that the vendor is stable. And because we are a large company, it is for us important that the vendor also provide some kind of stability due to its size and its footprint internationally.

Brand name isn't a big consideration for us. On the other hand, you have different analysts' reports that are quite important for us, as we don't have time and budget, from an architecture point of view, to evaluate all existing solutions in detail. So we have to have a starting point, which of course is the analysts' ratings and then, with some products, we usually do some kind of PoC and workshops to find out if they match our requirements.

I would actually divide my rating into two parts. The CA Gateway solution I would rate at nine out of 10, based on its mature capabilities in all the areas that are relevant for us. On the Portal, I would give only four out of 10 because I actually I don't quite understand the CA market strategy in that area, and the fact that the current version doesn't provide the same capabilities that they used to have with 3.5. There are some major capabilities that we miss there and which have not been introduced in the current 4.x version schemes; we're waiting for that to happen.

I would advise you plan a thorough PoC with the top two or three contenders on the list to find out about not only the functional criteria on the paper, but also how the product works and looks and feels in real life.

• Any-to-any integration.
• The abilities to bridge messaging protocols and transform data enable us to input/output data from/to/through SOAP, JSON, MQ, JMS, databases, FTP between various backend systems, facilitating business process automation.

We use it to integrate various different customer and backend systems, in order to automate business processes.

• Patching/upgrading is a manual process and should be automated.
• Configuration synchronizing between nodes (installation instances of this software) is a manual process and should be automated and simplified.
• It could use a better dashboard for showing performance metrics (e.g message throughput).
• Ideally there should be cheaper development/testing (ie. non-production) licenses available to customers.

We have used the solution for more than five years.

We did not encounter any issues with stability.

We did not encounter any issues with scalability.

The technical support is quite excellent. Support staff usually respond quickly and are helpful.

We didn't use any previous solutions in production. We tried different products in the prototyping phase more than five years ago. This one fits our needs the best.

The setup was quite straightforward, for experienced software developers. Layer7 Technologies back then provided (for a fee) a week-long on-site training for our staff, including myself. Extended trial licenses (longer than the usual 30 days) were also provided for us to become familiar with the product before we committed to buying licenses.

There are now two licensing tiers - Essential and Enterprise - whereas before there used to be only one. Make sure you’re buying the correct one for your needs.

We evaluated some other options such as IBM WebSphere Message Broker, WSO2 ESB, Oracle ESB, Actional SOAPstation, Fuse ESB / Apache ServiceMix, Mule ESB.

Get the proper training for your staff and don’t hesitate to ask CA for help if needed. The product is extensible and CA offers custom solutions. We had some small customer development done for us (for a fee), which was productized in a later version of the product.