We performed a comparison between 3scale API Management and IBM API Connect based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two API Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The standard deployment is very simple."
"I like the API automation."
"The product is stable."
"It's good that they aren't adding a lot of features like ESP, etc. It's okay with just being a gateway."
"To me, the most valuable feature of 3scale API Management is that it lets you add a backend to the product. I also like that you can integrate it well with OpenShift clusters, making 3scale API Management a useful solution."
"The most valuable features are the gateway and security features."
"3scale API Management's best feature is API management."
"The gateway is the most valuable feature because it makes it possible for us to gather all traffic into one proxy, which is a good thing."
"The technical support is good. Whenever we need anything, we have our IT team work with IBM to change whatever requirement is needed."
"The product gathers data to measure API performance."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is that it protects our backend system. We are exposing services to external parties and using this solution to protect the backend system, and to have a navigation in between."
"We really like the runtime capabilities of IBM API Connect. The creation of products and the control of the monetization and hit rate are some of the features which we've found very valuable."
"In-built policies and security functions."
"It has all of the tools that are needed for the specific mission."
"We are able to share those APIs instantly within the organization; even if we want to share it outside publicly, then we can have those capabilities."
"Since it runs on top of Datapower, all Datapower based custom policies can be utilized and exported to API connect but its not straightforward/simple process."
"We tried to use the portal, but we decided that it wasn't enough. The content management system (CMS) is not easy to use if you want to customize things, and it's hard to get someone who has the knowledge to work with the CMS."
"The product is not that flexible for developers. It's less flexible and rigid. It's not easy to make changes or customize it."
"The user experience could be better. The developer portal is too complex and hard to configure."
"It would be helpful to improve the customization features so that the customer can do it based on their own needs."
"I believe the CMS part of it has room for improvement though. That is where you write a couple of things if you want to publish your API. It's based on liquid scripting, which doesn't seem like the obvious ones to script with."
"3scale API Management only supports restful APIs and doesn't support SOAP."
"What I'd like to improve in 3scale API Management is its route-limiting feature. Currently, I don't know how to do that effectively on the solution, but in Kong, I know how to do it, so I would love to see route-limiting being easily done on 3scale API Management. It would also be good if there was some authentication that you could do from 3scale API Management because Kong offers that functionality out of the box. What I'd love to see in the next release of 3scale API Management is the ability to integrate more plug-ins easily onto the platform, so you'll be able to extend it, and even do customs management. If Red Hat could offer that extension where it allows the internal organization where 3scale API Management is deployed on-premise to integrate its tools on top of 3scale API Management and provide an API for that, that will make the solution very powerful."
"What was suggested by Red Hat was a crucial part of the configuration, but when we started to ask about the supportability of this configuration, Red Hat said only some parts of the configuration would be supported."
"We've had some issues upgrading to the latest version of the solution."
"The implementation process could benefit from improvements, as it may take some time to become accustomed to the deployment."
"Different versions of the same thing can mean unnecessary duplication."
"Documentation for the CLI is not very complete. Also, the support could be improved, and we have had several problems with backing up and restoring the product."
"It's based on a little bit dated architecture. A lot of evolution has happened after that. It's an evolving field. Kong is a Kubernetes-based platform. Kong runs on Kubernetes, but all the other ones are in microservices. So, there's a lot of improvement that can be done."
"The documentation needs to be a bit better."
"The monetization of the API could be improved. The pricing for the consumer is also very important to improve this solution."
"Support for this platform could still be improved. It also needs to have more levels of versatility. Its compatibility and integration with different platforms also need improvement."
3scale API Management is ranked 12th in API Management with 10 reviews while IBM API Connect is ranked 5th in API Management with 73 reviews. 3scale API Management is rated 7.4, while IBM API Connect is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of 3scale API Management writes "Useful as it lets you add a backend to the product, it integrates well with clusters, and it has exceptional technical support, but route-limiting isn't easy to do on it". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM API Connect writes "Good speed and performance, but it's based on a bit dated architecture". 3scale API Management is most compared with Amazon API Gateway, Kong Gateway Enterprise, Apigee, WSO2 API Manager and Microsoft Azure API Management, whereas IBM API Connect is most compared with IBM DataPower Gateway, Apigee, Microsoft Azure API Management, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager and Layer7 API Management. See our 3scale API Management vs. IBM API Connect report.
See our list of best API Management vendors.
We monitor all API Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.