WSO2 API Manager Reviews

We use the solution mainly to protect the frontend and backend proxy APIs. We also use the solution for federating with the identity server. We publish our backend API into WSO2 API Manager and use the proxy API outside. We use the solution for authorization, authentication, and accounting purposes.

WSO2 API Manager is quite easy. With WSO2 API Manager, we can use different DBs. It is easy to accommodate the solution along with any kind of identity server. WSO2 API Manager has a user-friendly model.

WSO2 API Manager should improve its marketplace subscription model and documentation in order to reach a higher level in the market.

I have been using WSO2 API Manager for the last two to four years.

I rate WSO2 API Manager an eight out of ten for stability.

I rate WSO2 API Manager an eight out of ten for scalability.

The solution's support model is not very clear enough right now.

Neutral

I previously used the Akamai tool.

The solution's initial setup is very easy. I rate WSO2 API Manager an eight out of ten for the ease of its initial setup.

The solution's deployment takes two to three hours. One person is sufficient to deploy WSO2 API Manager.

WSO2 API Manager is a costly solution, and its pricing is not competitive enough compared to other products.

I would recommend WSO2 API Manager to other users.

Overall, I rate WSO2 API Manager an eight out of ten.

WSO2 API Manager is used for digitalization and innovation.

WSO2 API Manager could increase their security compliance.

Here in India, the government is coming with a lot of regulations and required security features which the solutions have to upgrade to meet this requirement. Most of the solutions sell API management as a security solution, but they have to improve the security features.

There are a lot of modules and it can be complex.

I have been using WSO2 API Manager for approximately four years.

WSO2 API Manager is a stable solution.

My customers are not large companies, their volume is less. That is the reason why I recommend WSO2 API Manager because they have a full life cycle of products. For example, they have ESB, API management, and other tools. Additionally, they have webMethods and is quite expensive. 

There is a solution called Gravity which is new that is very good, but they have pure API management which vendors are looking for a full-fledged solution. That is their legacy model, they would need an ESB.

The technical support is good but it depends on the partner relationship.

I would rate the support from the WSO2 API Manager a four out of five.

Most of the solutions similar to WSO2 API Manager have small differences, because of how it fits in their environment. The features that WSO2 API Manager has most of the vendors have too.

I rate WSO2 API Manager a seven out of ten.

WSO2 API Manager serves as a central hub for integrating sensors across SmartCity projects. We provide support for developers, enabling them to build applications using our platform. Our use cases include features like spotlighting, forecasting, and environmental monitoring. We also offer security management through WFO protocols for responsible and secure environment for our users.

WSO2 API Manager is open-source, which offers a range of features not found in other open-source API tools. The user interface is another standout feature that we appreciate. In terms of effective features for API life-cycle management, we use the tool for licensing, allowing us to differentiate rates based on customer numbers and end-user data publishing.

Regarding security features, WSO2 API Manager is a robust compliance solution, especially for AWS usage. It offers deployment management, performance-based security, and overall compliance support.

I would like to see improvements in the speed of the solution as it can be a bit slow compared to other platforms along with addressing memory issues would be beneficial.

I have been using WSO2 API Manager for the past five years.

We experienced some stability issues, particularly related to memory, which affected the database performance.

WSO2 API Manager is scalable and suitable for our project needs. We have around twenty to twenty-five actual users who access the platform for deployment and management purposes.

I have interacted with technical support in the past, and they have assisted us with our queries. They were helpful overall, although some complex issues took longer to resolve.

Positive

I have experience using another API management solution from a larger company. Comparing WSO2 API Manager, it has its strengths in flexibility and customization based on our requests. It also has robust features and components. But in terms of cons, it can be complex and may take some time to set up compared to simpler solutions.

The setup was a bit complex because we initially started with enterprise professional services, but later transitioned to the open-source version which required more effort to set up.

We didn't encounter many challenges while integrating WSO2 API Manager with other systems as we primarily focused on setting up our own solution. We mainly relied on the solution itself for updates and upgrades.

Our deployment involved setting up two rings in the cluster and transitioning from testing to production. It took some time to learn the deployment process, especially with the enterprise version.

We completed the set-up in-house. One person is required for handling the deployment for the enterprise aspect.

We haven't implemented any AI-driven solutions or encountered AI-driven issues within our company.

I would recommend WSO2 API Manager to other users, especially if they value a robust support system and are ready to invest in the deployment process. However it is important to consider factors like support costs and licensing models before making a decision. 

In terms of overall rating, I would give it a seven out of ten, taking into account both its advantages and limitations.

Our normal use case for API Manager is to create pre-configured store users. The administrator who creates those users then sends them their credentials and secure links.  We are running API Manager on a Tomcat server. Currently, I am the main person who works with API Manager, because it requires a proper understanding of the APIs. 

When looking at things from an enterprise point of view, it's often difficult to see the benefit of a tool. Most of the time, we need to install a plug-in without having any lapse in services or restarting the application. The WSO2 platform can do all deployments without any downtime.

API Manager upgraded to 3.2 recently, and it has more flexibility in terms of authentication methods. In the version we're currently using, there is only a token. We couldn't do basic authentication.

In version 2.5, there is room for improvement on the UI. That may have been addressed in the upgrade to 3.2, which uses the latest front-end framework that's commonly used in other solutions like JIRA. I would need to play around with the upgrade, but I believe the UI issue has been addressed. I can only speak about my experience with the 2.5 version because that's the one I've been able to use extensively. I can say that user management is not really flexible. So, if I want to create 1,000 store users, I can't do it as a publisher. You have to register as a store user using the store URL. It would be nice if API Manager had that functionality as an administrator, so you would have a user management interface where you can create store users.  

I've been using API Manager for more than five years. I was using the platform before the recent overhaul. They now have this new interface where they migrated the front end to using view. So I think view framework or react, one of the two, but it's been a while.

API Manager is stable. We haven't had any stability issues at all. It has run on Tomcat for as long as I know, and it's a stable web service so.

In terms of scalability, it has so far been able to handle the traffic on the platform. We haven't had any issues where we've had downtime because too many requests were coming in per second.

The setup was pretty straightforward. I asked my colleague to do the setup. Since I've been working on it for a while, it probably wouldn't be a challenge. We didn't use many resources to do the setup or spend much time setting up the application because they've added more deployment scripts to make the solution easier to deploy.

Maybe I lack the curiosity to push me to check other platforms. Even when I try checking them, I've not actually checked other competitors because the major competitor got acquired by another platform.

I would rate API Manager eight out of 10. The advice I would give to anyone considering API Manager is to take the time to understand how the platform works. It doesn't matter how good a thing is if you don't understand the purpose. For example, you need to understand the use case for service orchestration. And once you know that, you know why it makes sense to bring in WSO2 API Manager. This is a better way to go about things than to force yourself into it, only to find out that it's not working for you at the end of the day. 

We're currently evaluating WSO2 API Manager and Kong for development environments and not production environments. We're currently using Apigee and AWS API Database for the production environments. 

Its open-source features are very good, especially for your production work. If your workload's still running in an on-premises environment, WSO2 is a good product.

I like a few WSO2 plugins we're using for routing, message request transformation, or response transformation. I also like the security encryption feature.

Another thing I like about WSO2 is the nice training and tutorials they have on their website. They have my type of training on their website for API gateway and open banking. They're all self-based training, and you can go to those training pages or videos and learn in your free time.

They don't have different URLs for administrators. They should have one in place like Kong. For example, Kong has Konga as an administrative URL, where everything is available in one place for submissions and subscribers. But with WSO2, they have exposed it on a different port, and if I want to publish, I have to open a different URL with a different port for publishers and subscribers. It'll help if they can combine it on one port. WSO2 API Manager could also be somewhat cheaper.

I have been using WSO2 API Manager for more than one or two months.

It looks like a stable product.

WSO2 API Manager is a scalable solution.

WSO2 is the first open-source solution we're trying out. But we're still using Apigee from Google and AWS API Database from Amazon.

The initial setup is straightforward, and not much effort is required for installation. It's simple.

We implemented it by ourselves. It took about two people to set up and deploy.

It's not expensive, but it could be cheaper.

I would recommend it as I think it is good.  

On a scale from one to ten, I would give WSO2 API Manager an eight.

We use it along with IdentityServer, as our main API management tool for API exposure to the internet. It's not for internal usage, it's for external use.

We have two main roles regarding WSO2 API Manager. There are the admins, who publish guides and user updates, etc — we employ around four people who perform this role. In terms of users, we have around five to six million users going through it on a monthly basis.

The main feature — the publication of the API, the management section — is great in general.

I think it would be very unfair for me to answer this question because we are running a very outdated system (they might have improved it a lot with their newer versions), but I'm going to try it anyway. I think they could greatly improve the general UX with their solutions because when you manage different components that are meant to work together, it's very difficult. You have to deal with two completely unrelated interfaces.

Perhaps they should include a tool to assist with migrating to Azure.

I have been using WSO2 API Manager for the past four to five years.

Stability-wise, it's actually pretty nice — it's good. I wouldn't say it's very good or excellent, but it's good. It fits the bill.

Scalability-wise, I'd give it a three-star rating out of five — good, but not very good or perfect.

The provisioning has to be done manually. In terms of system-wise configurations, these settings involve a lot of big Java components, so it's not natural. It's not very easy to handle. Again, this is an older version. Perhaps they have already worked on this.

We don't have a contract for dedicated support. We have to deal with internet forums, etc. Officially speaking, there's no support outside of community forums.

The documentation and community support are pretty helpful. There are a lot of questions answered about WSO2 on several forums and message boards, etc. Although it's not dedicated, it's quite relevant.

We're actually in the process of switching to Microsoft Azure API management.

For us, the main benefit of Azure is that it's a managed solution. We have a very restricted theme and not having to deal with the actual configuration of the platform or the underlying operating system and other intrinsic administration tasks is a big win for us. The feature that we use the most and that is most licensed is perhaps the online portal. The certified online portal is the biggest win for us because we can deal with the associated integrations within this new portal, which we can't in the current stack, the on-premises stack.

I wasn't a part of the original project, but I know that the initial setup wasn't easy.

We use the open-source version — the free version.

I wouldn't actually recommend this to anyone. I think that there are paid solutions, such as Azure API Management, which will relieve you from the administrative burden. Personally, I wouldn't recommend this solution at all.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give WSO2 a rating of seven. It's a good tool, but dealing with the on-premises infrastructure is a big headache.

We have developed a slew of applications for Bank, that helped transform multiple core banking processes, such as customer onboarding, account servicing, and rapid loan request fulfillment. The solution, which is powered by WSO2’s API management and enterprise integration technologies, seamlessly bridges systems while paving the digital path to a connected financial ecosystem.

• Reduced operating costs by using open-source technology solutions
• Enhanced customer trust built through multi-channel communication
• Shortened delivery time for client services
• Improved compliance and reduced risk exposure

Helped us to quickly publish our Microservice APIs and enforcing different policies against them, it comes up with features like Security, Throttling policy and it provides complete access to customize API's which actually saves development effort and time.

The solution offers a simple and easy configuration. You can get it working up within one or two days' time. It's very fast, simple to use, and you can deploy things quickly. Its very easy to configure and takes less time to create customize policies across the API Gateway.  

The solution is very stable and can scale well.

Providing easy configuration for email and SMS notifications, layout and customization of admin and developer landing pages.

We've been using this solution for last 5 years.

It's stable. There is no issue with it in that sense at all. That said, some of the customers who have faced issues have had problems in the updating part. For example, when they update something, something goes wrong. However, if they are following a proper process, they should be okay. Whenever you have to do an upgrade you should first do it in a staging environment to test it and make sure you won't have issues. If everything works properly there only then should you move into production. If somebody follows a proper IT process, then they will have no issues. We have never faced any issues and it's a perfectly stable platform as far as we are concerned.

WSO2 API Management platform can be deployed in a scalable manner where the system can handle 1000RPS with 10 - 20 KB payloads.
WSO2 API Manager can be deployed in a way where auto scaling is there so whenever there is a traffic spike the deployment can auto scale.
Also, APIs can be deployed across multiple gateways so one APIs traffic spike won't affect the rest of the gateways.

Tech support is very good. The open-source version means you have to get support from the community. However, if you have a subscription, they provide the support portal and everything is solved there. Therefore you get support directly from the project team. The engineers who developed the product directly support you sometimes and you get very good support from them. 

There are no issues with support at all. Even if you need some sort of customized help, the engineers will assist. It's very helpful.

have used 3scale earlier, to lower costs, simplify maintenance, and because WSO2 API Manager is open-source

The initial setup is not complex or overly difficult. In fact, it's pretty straightforward. The solution offers a simple and easy configuration. You can get it up and running within one or two days. The deployment doesn't take very long.

We have implemented both all-in-one deployments and distributed setup. The distributed setup is a little more complex, most of the time takes in network configurations. That said, the basic setup is very simple and fast.

We have a dedicated lab setup for trying new features, and we provide implementation and support solution to our customers.

Complete feature set in the open source version

Flexibility and extensibility

Complete platform with built-in integration and security

Single GA (generally available) edition with all features. Subscription model

Simple pricing model with per core pricing. No licensing fees for development

Each subscription also covers, at no extra fee:

• Bursting of on-premise production systems by up to two times the subscribed cores, lasting for up to 3 cumulative days during the subscription year.

• Up to 3 pre-production environments

• Individual development machines, though please note that issues arising on such systems qualify for query support rather than incident support SLAs

• Analytics Profiles

• Passive instances in an active/passive deployment

• Disaster recovery systems

• Query support hours up to a level proportional to the subscription fee

We evaluated 3scale, Apigee and Tibco

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. We've been extremely happy with it so far. It's affordable and pretty easy to use overall.

Our primary use for this solution is to manage API, which is important to our business model and design of what we do as consultants. I found WSO2 (Web Services Oxygen Tank) was a platform that I could easily work on. All the building practices have to do with API, so when I needed a platform that could manage our API with flexibility, this was our best opportunity. It also leaves room for growth as a solution.

The product has improved our organization by simply allowing us to do things now in ways we could not do before we started using it. In the future, it will also allow us to offer expanded options to our clients.

I don't know that there is one single valuable feature. We chose the solution because it could integrate and solve multiple issues. Building blocks and all the products we need to integrate can be attached. That capability in the architecture makes it very flexible. Control is possible over even little things like that fact that I can enable and disable the logs.

The logs are well detailed and if I'm troubleshooting, it makes troubleshooting quite easier. I can test the loads and see every detail, their inquires, and their response. I think the recent changes in the WSO2 also make orchestration better. That is designing and orchestrating components is quite easy. For me, the fact that it's built upon TomCat makes everything easier for me. These are all very valuable features.

It is a very good product, but still, there are some things I think can be improved. I think the interface is the one that comes to mind first. The interface should be much more user-friendly and modern.

If you look at other products and their modern user interfaces, you could see what the other companies are doing and what you could be doing. A nice look and feel is something that can impress a user, and it can be trendy and inviting. I think the user interface for now for the WSO2 is not really there yet. The one complaint I get from our business team is the same: they find it not that user-friendly and this makes it more difficult for them to use. It takes some experience to get around.

Another feature which I love but can also be improved is usability in terms of switching across the different components of the product. You could have just the user management console and some adjustment in design would make us have less trouble navigating. But the components are all separate. You have to access the publisher console, and then they have a flash publisher. Then you have the store, and more. It is just many things you have to know.

So there are different interfaces. I would love a situation where you should be able to just have a single interface where you're executing your role per security. Depending on the role you have, will determine what you can do. I don't have to switch across different interfaces before I could access the publisher using the same roles if I am assigned the privilege.

Lastly, another feature I think is needed is in the area of customization. Before you can make any custom changes, you have to be very technical. But it's a bit difficult to make changes depending on what you need to accomplish. The documentation is also not that straight forward and could use work.

You have to make a whole lot of changes to the framework. It's a framework, which I think is something that can be more efficient. It's not the common framework that you see in today's development as we have in other products. It is a custom framework that we use for the product.

I think for now that really all of the problems are summarized by the interface. They need to invest more on the front end. I know sometimes people will want to work as a back-end guy and that should remain. I think they should invest more on the user interface, user experience to make it better for less technical people.

I would rate the stability good because the building block that we used was TomCat and I know TomCat. For me, it is very simple work with and very stable.

As far as scalability, we always use the products on a high demand development because I know the initial communications that I've experienced for myself with TomCat. Because I worked with TomCat for a number of years and I know that TomCat has a maximum capacity. But I didn't know how WS02 manages and used the ability of all its feature pool, so I won't be able to give a comment on that. But this is something we will explore more in our next development project. There is one new project that we have that is going to require a very high demand environment.

We design applications to appease the capabilities of the environment and the client. We pick up on stability by evaluating data transactions per second. So if I get to use the API in more of the client environments and with different configurations then I would know more. But I don't think we have even yet pushed it to its potential.

I have not had to contact technical support as essentially I am technical support. So far, everything is good and I haven't had any reason to contact them.

The initial setup for a technical person like myself is not difficult. Once you download the installation, all you do is start from the dependencies, which is from the JAVA and the database. I think for me, the setup is pretty straightforward and will be for other technical people.

We do all of our own installations and installations for our clients as well.

WS02 is really the first API manager I have used, or I have used API management but not with this kind of flexibility. In terms of know-how and getting to know about the API Manager, we currently only use it only internally. We do some consulting, and so we tried other solutions to solve other problems for them and ourselves. We tried some telecommunications products, but they did not have an application that manages the API. We tried Apache Camel. Out of several different products, I was excited to see a similar application that would manage API as well. Several of the other products I found pretty easy to use, but that is not the main criteria. Maybe those products would be useful for consulting and what we offer clients. But this is the product that was best for the integrated solutions we needed.

Right now we are using only the main part of the product. It is an internal application only for deployment at our company at the moment. We haven't deployed the product across to clients for now because they will have to be very technical, and it is almost the nature of clients who use consultants that they may not always be the most technical or want to use difficult products.

The experience we are building internally is something we do look forward to sharing. We do have one client who is considering the product. They want to use it similar to how we do as a local API, and we intend to expose it as a possible solution in our business plan for them. We are open to having new clients use it in the near future.

The advice I have for any of the organizations or companies looking for an API manager is that they, first of all, verify the building block before selecting a product. For me it is Apache, and I know the amount of work that goes towards Apache, how much has to go into TomCat. If we take on clients with a similar need it would make support rather easy for us to provide for them and we can be very efficient.

Secondly, the product is an open-source community build-up. The WS02 organization is its own company providing support. I grew with the product from the time I started to develop with it until now. I've been able to see the changes and how it has evolved. I know in WS02 ESB, now its called Enterprise Integrations. It shows its a growing community, it shows that it has the potential to be a great community. We can work with it for a long time as well as incorporate solutions in the technology that is out there today.

The longevity and growth of the product can help people to trust and use the product.

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate it an eight. It is an eight and not a ten because of the interface. But it is an eight, which is a good rating because I haven't seen any other vendor that provides a similar platform. You can use the platform directly or you can operate on the platform using the exposed API. I think that makes an exciting API that you can make use of in many different ways. There is no competitor that has more connections or offers such a platform.