Microsoft Azure API Management Reviews

There were legacy APIs running on-premises, and we wanted a modernized layer without disturbing the existing legacy layer. Microsoft Azure API management helps with that. We can wrap the modernized API layer. The modernized API layer can perform rate-limiting, monitoring, throttling, aggregating, and other boilerplate functions without disturbing the backend business logic.

I like that security features can be integrated with API Management. I also like that you can perform rate-limiting and throttling functions.

You can host multiple API gateways in different locations. If one goes down, then another will take over. Microsoft Azure API Management is good in terms of nonfunctional requirements.

The documentation is neat and organized, and as a result, we rarely have the need to contact technical support. 

Microsoft Azure API Management is lagging behind Apigee and should also have a better CICD process.

I used it for six months.

It's a stable solution.

Because it is on Microsoft Azure, we don't have to worry about scalability. I would give scalability a rating of ten out of ten.

Technical support is very poor and needs a lot of improvement. The process is not straightforward, and they are hard to reach.

Because it is a cloud solution, the initial setup is straightforward.

It is an expensive solution, but any API solution will be expensive.

Overall, I would rate Microsoft Azure API Management at nine on a scale from one to ten.

Microsoft Azure API Management is used in our organization to support the API lifecycle. 

It's a valuable tool for API lifecycle management. Another Azure offering is API gateway, which is used to enable the APIs, publish them for internal or external customers, API scaling and other typical use cases. 

Microsoft Azure API Management also has security or threshold features that monitor and control API access through a subscription-based model. 

Documentations for implementing certain product features are very difficult to find. Information regarding some features of Microsoft Azure API Management cannot be found through searching on the Internet; it can be understood, discovered, and learned hands-on while using the solution. Documentations for the product should include examples of implementation. 

I have been using Microsoft Azure API Management for four years. 

It's a highly stable product. 

Microsoft Azure API Management can be easily scaled. 

Users can contact customer support whenever there are any issues with the product's stability and features.  But in our company, we never faced any issues with the product for which we had to seek help from the support team. The documentation from Microsoft helps our company to solve issues on our own. 

Microsoft Azure API Management can be easily deployed. But if you want the API pipelines to associate with the API codes, sometimes it can be challenging and the need to write custom code might arise before the solution's deployment. The Azure DevOps pipelines are not straightforward, just like some other Azure services.

The deployment time depends upon the service availed and the artifacts, including API, policy file, and other integrations. Each API deployment takes around five minutes with Microsoft Azure API Management. The deployment duration majorly depends upon the ideal pipeline building and its configuration. A team of professionals is required for the solution's deployment and maintenance. When a maintenance need arises with the product, a professional can spend half a day implementing it. 

The ROI depends upon the purpose of adopting Microsoft Azure API Management in the first place. For basic usage like API and gateway management and publishing, in that case the product's ROI will be high.

Proper configuration of the solution, implementation strategy and correct scaling tier selection are other factors that influence the ROI. For instance, if you avail yourself of a higher tier of scalability than required and there are only a few users of your API, the ROI might not be satisfying. 

The product can seem very costly if the use case for Microsoft Azure API Management demands high usage and scalability. I would rate the pricing a six out of ten. It's an expensive solution. 

When Microsoft Azure API Management is compared with IBM's competitor product, I would always choose Microsoft Azure API Management because of its user-friendliness, easy integrations with other Azure tools and other extensive features. 

The availing of API protection features depends upon the customer requirements of our organization. If customers want the API to be secure and restrict accessibility then a subscription model is often integrated into the API where users will gain access to certain services upon payment.

If a customer will be dealing with sensitive data through their API, then only a few individuals will have access which is implemented through Microsoft Azure API Management. I would overall rate the product an eight out of ten.

I would advise others to check the documentation first as it allows you to test the product even before purchasing. Superior technical experts are not needed to operate Microsoft Azure API Management. It's an excellent learning product as one doesn't need to buy a license to start using Microsoft Azure API Management. 

We use the platform to configure API connectors with authentication and generate reports. We utilize it within a private cloud environment as part of our system integration services, providing these services to other users.

The solution has significantly improved our organization by providing a user-friendly and easy-to-deploy API management system.

The platform's most valuable features are its rule-based permissions and comprehensive API lifecycle management capabilities.

The solution's deployment process could be slightly improved in terms of time. Additionally, they should enhance AI capabilities and more advanced integration features with other platforms.

I have been using Microsoft Azure API Management for six years.

The product is stable. We haven't encountered any stability-related issues. 

The product is scalable. 

We have used different solutions in the past.

The initial setup was straightforward and user-friendly.

We implemented the product with the help of our in-house team. 

We have seen significant financial benefits after using the product. Moving to the cloud offers many advantages.

The product pricing is reasonable. 

We evaluated other options, including solutions from AWS and Google Cloud. However, Microsoft Azure API Management stood out for its feature set and easy integration with our existing infrastructure.

We use the platform for all acquisitions and system management, automating various processes. Our API server is integrated into our cloud system ensuring everything is documented in a single query.

I rate it a ten out of ten. 

We use this product for Epics, Story and Function Management for Products and Accelerator Development, Deployment and Operations Management.

This is a One Place solution for the majority of needs in an IT and Software development environment.

Microsoft Azure API Management is better because it has a DevOps integration by default.

It would be better if it were easier to transition to Azure from JIRA. For example, there are different nomenclature that must be addressed when you shift to Azure from JIRA. JIRA's storage, tasks, and epics are treated differently from Azure. 

Here they might become functions, which is not an option in JIRA because that nomenclature difference is there. 

JIRA has sub-tasks, but sub-tasks don't exist in Azure. The nomenclature and the linking between Epics and a function and a story are different, and people may have to learn to adapt to the new nomenclature.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Project Management for about Two and a half years.

Microsoft Azure API Management is pretty stable. We are Microsoft gold partners, so we have not faced any issues until now.

Microsoft Azure API Management is scalable. The Microsoft platform supports my organization, which is 35,000 employees strong.

Technical support is pretty good. 

We were using JIRA which can be enhanced by using third-party tools, this is a costly business so we shifted to the Microsoft platform, which was integrated for development as well as management. So that's a better way of doing things.

The initial setup is straightforward. It was an organization-wide integration, so we have never faced any issues.

It's free for less than ten users. If you want to go beyond that, its paid. But when you use all features of Azure its a very cost effective solution.

Costs depend on the size, complexity, usage, and what facility you want to integrate. So, we use Microsoft Azure and have the entire DevOps and Visual Studio on the cloud. We get all enterprise flavor with very optimum cost, when compared to multivendor environment.

I would tell potential users to go for it. It's a good platform. Even though the ecosystem may not be that strong, it's a better option for a software development company. You can explore other options to save some bucks if you are not into software development. However, for an IT company, Microsoft Azure is the better option.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Azure API Management an eight.

We have several layers in our infrastructure. Some of our layers are more connector-based and interfacing with our systems of record and outsource service providers. Right now, we use Microsoft Azure API Management for that. We're now deciding what to use for the process layer, which is more orchestration and data-mapping-based.

If you were truly a .NET shop and truly Microsoft cloud-centric, this is the most cloud-native offering, and there are some benefits to that. It's really easy to use for simple passthrough APIs. It feels more modern and compatible with people with .NET skill sets, and that's a strong selling point.

The solution's data mapping and orchestration are very code-intensive or require callouts to external systems. They seem suboptimal for the more complex use cases.

A simple installation is very easy, and I rate it ten out of ten. However, it goes to the other extreme when you try to do complex use cases, like orchestration, aggregation, and data mapping. For such scenarios, I rate the installation a five out of ten because of the code intensity and maintenance you would incur.

The solution appears cheaper because it's a cloud SaaS model. Its benefit is that you can use a small amount, and it'll appear very cheap. However, once you scale up to your full volume, it'll be more expensive because it'll incorporate a bunch of different services that are holistically more expensive than the alternative.

There are around ten key security characteristics I look for in a solution. On the surface, my analysis so far seems to indicate that Microsoft Azure API Management has the ability to deliver on those parameters. Given the close relationship between Microsoft and OpenAI, we hope the solution will evolve more quickly and incorporate AI more fully, but we don't know for sure.

Our goal is to create a composable financial institution. We are trying to get developers not to be the bottleneck anymore but to be more agile, to grow market share, and to grow national reach. To do all those things, you need very agile, world-class APIs. There are ways to make both work for that. We'll have to evaluate which one is the shorter path.

I would recommend the solution for cloud-native Microsoft .NET shops with simple API requirements. However, I would not recommend it for multi-cloud, larger shops with more diverse or complicated use cases.

Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.

Our company uses the solution for API orchestration and UI management. We currently have 50,000 users. 

The UI management is very easy to use. 

The solution provides good management of API orchestrations. 

Technical support is very good and moves very fast. 

The API gateway can be very complex. We had difficulty managing end users for a very, very complex project. 

I am not sure that another API gateway would have better handled this difficult project. 

I have been using the solution for four years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

We have a partnership with Microsoft. Their support is very good and moves very fast. They are available to us in a maximum of ten to twenty minutes. 

The setup is very easy and doesn't take long. 

We implemented the solution in-house. 

I also use WSO2 and Kong. Of all the options, Kong is my preference because it is easier to use. 

The solution's support is very good. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We use Microsoft Azure API Management with our coding.

All we need to do is run our specific code because the dependencies are already there. 

I would like to see more security features become available. For example, the integration on premises could be better. Things could be more user-friendly. Currently, the integration we work with is more complex than it needs to be.

I have been using Microsoft Azure API Management for the past thirteen months.

I am finding Microsoft Azure API Management stable.

Day by day we are increasing the usage of Microsoft Azure API Management.

My current experience with technical support has been good.

We were using DIS. We needed to install the run times, libraries, and install operating systems. We had to make a lot of initial preparations to get the process ready to operate. Now it is already available and ready to operate with Microsoft Azure API Management.

I would rate the initial setup process a four out of five.  The setup was basic and good.

We do our implementation through one of our partners. The configuration was around fifteen to twenty minutes long.

There is no investment funding or upfront cost needed. 

There are no licensing fees we pay on a monthly basis.

We compared it with DIS because most of the time we were using DIS, for such kind of deployment.

Many people are using the API, and it is a prominent feature currently being used. I would rate Microsoft Azure API Management an eight out of ten.

The basic tier is pretty good. 

It's publicly available API Management.

The price is pretty reasonable for us. 

We need better integration with VNet. 

It would be nice to not only configure it through the interface but also with an ARM template or something like that. Maybe it's possible, but it's not that easy to find.

It took us time to get used to the interface. Now that we run it, it's a little bit hard to have a testing environment and the production environment and keep it synced. If you can do that through a script, that would be far easier. However, there was a time thing on our side. We couldn't get it done, and in the end, we just set it up manually.

The licensing tiers can be misleading. 

It would be ideal if there was a way to add monetization into the mix so that we could more easily sell our APIs.

I started using the solution about three years ago, and I use it now and again on a few projects. 

We didn't have a previous solution.

I wasn't directly involved with the implementation, and I'm not sure how long it took to deploy the product. 

Some of my colleagues implemented the solution. We did it ourselves using the documentation provided by Microsoft. 

We are using a basic tier. 

For the things we do, it's reasonable in terms of cost. You can implement it in the developer solutions. That's basically more or less free. But if you implement VNET in it there, you can only upgrade it if you use premium, and premium is so expensive. That's just no fun. That was a little bit annoying since you think you have a good solution in your development environment, and then you are in production and need a premium tier to have the same configuration. We had to reconfigure some stuff.

We also looked at Apigee, and Apigee has some integrated features, however, Apigee was very complex to get started with. Apart from that, we are a Microsoft company, and we're on the Microsoft stack. It was more logical to keep everything in Azure. That's why we chose Azure API Management.

We use Azure and it suits our case pretty well. It could be better, but we might also have to learn more. Currently, I would rate it at an eight out of ten for our use case. We might also want to use it in the future to sell subscriptions, which is not possible out of the box. You can configure subscriptions, yet you still have to do the whole selling and measuring and things like that. That's not fully integrated.