We performed a comparison between Layer7 API Management and webMethods API Gateway 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."You can create little, custom Java assertions that you can insert to do your business logic, which might not be covered by the commercial product out-of-the-box."
"It impresses me as a product because it never goes down. It always does what it is supposed to do."
"We can create multiple orgs and set up policies and management. We can also integrate with an APM solution"
"Has great drag-and-drop features and requires minimal coding."
"The administration interface (Policy Manager) is very easy to understand and use."
"It's pretty easy to use, and once we have templating set up we can add new APIs, at least through the gateway, and apply the security to them; it takes a minute."
"The scalability has been good. We haven't had to scale up a whole lot, even with all the extra transactions we're running through it. We're in the area of about 2 and 1/2 million OAuth tokens issued per hour, and it's performing fine with that."
"There are a few assertions which are built-in for threat protection. I have used them for vulnerabilities, like for DDoS attacks, XML schema validation, IP restriction, and for cross-domain."
"The cloud version of the solution is very easy to set up."
"In the API gateway, there is a new feature that allows us to filter logs within a payload. This has been a useful feature."
"The most valuable aspect of this solution for me has been the configuration-based UI. Once you get the hang of it, it enables you to easily develop an API. In addition, it has many in-built policies that are quite handy."
"The developer portal is a valuable feature."
"I like the solution's policies, transformation, mediation, and routing features."
"What I like the most about the solution is that it comes with ready-made tools like handling security tokens and OAuth."
"There were no complexities involved in the setup phase...The product is able to meet my company's API protection needs."
"This solution has given us a competitive advantage because we have better automation and insight."
"Some users say that the API lacks some features and is lagging behind the competition although that has not been my personal experience."
"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."
"If they had different levels of support available then it would be easier to justify the costs."
"The product's initial setup phase is not very straightforward, making it an area where improvements are required."
"The portal is not the most intuitive and the way things are displayed makes it difficult to find the information we need."
"The CA API Management solution has good security features, but when it comes to being used in areas like enterprise integration, where it is being used as middleware for all the IT environments, that particular feature is quite limited. It doesn't support as many protocols as an industry standard, competing product should."
"The OTK, however, is a complex upgrade. They tend to change the schemas on the database behind it, between the versions, which can be a pain to have to migrate all of our existing clients from one database schema to the other."
"The security protocols in CA's product, for financial services, weren't as good as those in API Connect."
"Understanding the overall architecture is difficult."
"With respect to the API gateway, the runtime component, the stability after a new release is something that can be improved."
"In terms of improvements, maybe on the API monetization side, having users able to create separate consumption plans and throttle all those consumption plans towards the run time could be better."
"It is an expensive solution and not very suitable for smaller businesses."
"With performance, there is room for improvement in regards to if we would like to put another extra layer of security on it, such as SSL. This is affecting their performance quite significantly. They need to improve the process of managing the SSL and other things inside their solutions, so there will not be quite such a significant impact to the performance."
"The high price of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"There are things that could be improved with the webMethods API gateway. One thing is that it's too attached to the integration service and we'd like it to be a little bit more independent. We would like for them to separate operations so that it doesn't rely on the bulky integration server and so that it can be used everywhere."
"The configuring of the JWT token would be improved as it is a confusing process. We require more information on this part of the solution."
Layer7 API Management is ranked 10th in API Management with 110 reviews while webMethods API Gateway is ranked 12th in API Management with 10 reviews. Layer7 API Management is rated 8.4, while webMethods API Gateway is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Layer7 API Management writes "Has great drag-and-drop features and it requires minimal coding ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods API Gateway writes "We developed several services in the cloud using a sandbox environment for our last hackathon". Layer7 API Management is most compared with Apigee, Kong Gateway Enterprise, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Amazon API Gateway and Microsoft Azure API Management, whereas webMethods API Gateway is most compared with Apigee, webMethods.io Integration, Kong Gateway Enterprise, webMethods Microgateway and 3scale API Management. See our Layer7 API Management vs. webMethods API Gateway 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.
