Microsoft Azure API Management Reviews

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.

The main use case is if you want to be exposed to an external endpoint. We use it for access. It can only be used by Azure API.

If I want to expose API endpoints to clients, we use this solution. 

The API management is great. It comes out of the box ready to go and comes with policies. 

It is stable.

Technical support is good.

We have witnessed an ROI.

We have to put the logs in Datadog. We need to use some other product to do all of the things we want. That costs extra. However, there are other solutions, like Dynatrace, that offer more features and have more functionalities. Right now, we have to use logic apps. You need more third-party apps to fill in the gaps. 

If I want to connect to other apps to Saleforce or Snowflake, et cetera, I need a quicker way to do mapping and to integrate everything together. 

I need to have microservice access. 

I'd like to have better flexibility and more capabilities. 

I've been using the solution for three to four years. 

I'd rate the stability seven or eight out of ten. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. 

We do not scale the solution. We don't need multi-tenancy or anything like that. Our understanding is that if we did need to scale it would cost more. 

Technical support is very good and is available around the clock. 

Positive

I'm familiar with a variety of other solutions, including Mulesoft.

I have witnessed an ROI while using the solution. 

The pricing is expensive, however, it does offer great value. I'd rate the solution seven or eight out of ten in terms of value for money.

I'm not sure which version of the solution I'm using. 

The product covers all of the basic needs you will need. If you need more robust options, Mulesoft might be a good option. However, this is a pretty good tool

I'd rate the solution an eight 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. 

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.

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.

Using an API management tool was new for us and it's definitely brought us a lot of value since implementation.

The way the solution integrates with other Azure services is its most valuable aspect.

The portal where we publish the APIs could be improved. Maybe this is because we didn't configure it. It is quite easy to bypass API management because we have a lot of information shared on the portal, where we publish our APIs. I worry there is potential for a security breach in the API publishing. There needs to be more security available on terms of the way we publish them.

We've been using the solution for three years now.

The solution is quite stable. We have no issues with it. there have been no crashes and we haven't experienced bugs or glitches. It's been quite reliable.

The solution is totally scalable. If a company needs to build out the solution to expand it, they can do so easily.

Support is very good. We have a direct line of contact with Microsoft product management's technical support. Contacting Microsoft has been very easy. It's perfect.

I did not participate in the installation. However, from the information I have received, it was quite difficult. It wasn't difficult because of the solution itself but because, for us, it was a totally new solution. We had no experience with it. If a company has a lot of experience with Azure API Management, it would be rather straightforward.

The pricing of the product is reasonable. It was one of the selling points for us when we were looking for a solution for our company.

We did evaluate a few other solutions before ultimately going with Microsoft. We looked at MuleSoft, for example, but it was a totally new environment for us. Another solution didn't have the level of maturity we wanted in a cloud product. Microsoft was also new, however, we had a lot of contacts there and we had all of their interfaces. After looking at the pricing and features, it ended up being the best option.

So far, we've been very happy with the solution.

I'd rate it eight out of ten overall.