Amazon API Gateway Reviews

We use Amazon API Gateway to expose our back end to the front end.

The best thing about Amazon API Gateway is that it can authenticate and authorize requests without going to our back end. We can use the solution to authenticate a request. It has a time out of 30 seconds, wherein it will show time out if any request takes more than 30 seconds.

We can create many sub-resources in a single resource. Instead of creating five resources for five APIs, we can create five sub-resources in only one resource. I love working with Amazon API Gateway because it is very user-friendly.

I faced issues with the timeout because some machine-learning scripts would take more than 30 seconds. Since the first invocation of AWS Lambda takes more than 30 seconds because of Lambda's cold start, Amazon API Gateway blocks that resource, thereby aborting the invocation.

I have been using Amazon API Gateway for two years.

Amazon API Gateway is a highly stable product.

More than ten people are using the solution in our organization.

The solution’s technical support is good.

Amazon API Gateway is a very cheaply priced product.

It is very easy for a beginner to learn to use Amazon API Gateway and to create some resources manually. You can download one CDK script to create that same resource in any other environment a second time.

Amazon API Gateway is a serverless product. We don't need to manage servers. We only need to create the resources that we need to create. It is a completely deployed product. We create our AWS account, and we can create APIs directly. We don't need to worry about servers.

Setting up the authorization and authentication mechanism with Amazon API Gateway is very easy and takes only half an hour. We are actively migrating from on-premises to AWS or any other cloud. We will have a very big use case for Amazon API Gateway in the future.

You should be very specific with the configuration if you are a new user. Initially, you should have a very simple configuration and not use a proxy. If you have a use case to expose the Amazon API gateway to any front-end resources, you have to allow CORS and set headers. Be specific with the headers and CORS configuration, and don't make it complex. Don't jump directly into advanced configuration.

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

We primarily utilize Amazon API Gateway to expose our APIs externally and enhance security by implementing components such as input validation, filtering, and ensuring secure exposure through the gateway.

In our microservices architecture, we utilize Amazon API Gateway. However, since API Gateway doesn't directly support microservice architecture, we require a micro gateway infrastructure. This is why we're exploring alternative API management platforms.

Integrating API Gateway with other AWS services is seamless, especially with cloud-native services like Lambda. It's straightforward to expose APIs built with microservices using Lambda through API Gateway. Additionally, hosting other AWS services as endpoints within API Gateway is convenient.

The performance and scalability of our applications have been impacted by the API database. Managing API scalability is simplified by using API Gateway as a reverse proxy, which centralizes configuration management without requiring developers to modify code frequently. However, for scalability, we primarily rely on AWS's load balancing and autoscaling features rather than API Gateway. Nonetheless, the inherent scalability and manageability of API Gateway as a managed service are beneficial, alleviating concerns about its availability.

One of the most valuable aspects of API Gateway is its native integration with AWS services. This makes it simple to integrate with other services and automate processes within a single script, following a DevOps approach.

We have been utilizing the throttling feature for managing API traffic. With numerous legacy APIs in our system, we've witnessed a significant surge in API requests over time, leading to performance issues due to the lack of throttling. To address this, we require an easier way to adjust throttling settings dynamically as needed.

The authorization and access control features effectively address our security requirements. In terms of API authorization, we rely on OpenID Connect (OIDC), which is not native to AWS but serves our purposes well. User authorization is managed separately for each product platform, with built-in authorization mechanisms tailored to individual products.

API Gateway lacks some usability features that would make it a standard platform for development. For instance, it doesn't include a built-in developer portal, requiring custom development for such functionality. This customization can be extensive and akin to building an entire API management platform from scratch.

The API Gateway lacks the capability to directly facilitate API strategy development or user onboarding workflows. For instance, it doesn't offer out-of-the-box features like developer portals or publisher portals, which are essential for streamlining user onboarding and interaction. These portals play a crucial role in enhancing user adoption by providing a seamless experience for developers and users alike. Currently, API Gateway primarily serves as a technical gateway without built-in support for user engagement functionalities.

I have been working with it for five years.

We serve over a hundred end users across various product areas since our company hosts multiple products. Consequently, we offer distinct API products tailored to each product domain.

We benefit from enterprise support, ensuring prompt responses from the technical support team. I would rate it nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup of API Gateway can be somewhat complex, especially if you're unfamiliar with how it operates within AWS. Configuring access control and other aspects like DNS settings can be tricky without prior knowledge of API Gateway and AWS services. Therefore, there's a learning curve associated with setting up API Gateway, which may entail some upfront learning costs.

Deployment time for API Gateway is notably swift. When initiating a new creation within API Gateway, the integration with the DevOps pipeline, especially if all components reside within AWS, ensures a seamless and rapid deployment process. It swiftly establishes the API, sets up the necessary infrastructure, configures the API Gateway, and identifies the requisite DNS for the Gateway endpoints.

I believe the return on investment for API Gateway is satisfactory.

The pricing model for API Gateway is advantageous due to its serverless nature, as it depends on traffic volume. Continuous traffic incurs reasonable costs, as the pricing is based on usage. This flexibility in pricing is appreciated, as it reflects the efficiency of the service provided.

I would recommend API Gateway to those who are uncertain about their API management vision and are already on the AWS platform. It presents an excellent opportunity to start with API management without committing to a specific strategy immediately. Overall, I would rate it six out of ten.

We have all the calls to our servers through API Gateway. We use API Gateway at the front, and everything else is hidden behind the firewall. API Gateway routes calls to our servers. We use API Gateway for our calling solutions.

API Gateway is out of the box and works well with Amazon products. It handles security and other headaches, keeping our database and servers secure. Moreover, it's easy to integrate with Amazon products.

API Gateway could improve by allowing debugging capabilities, particularly when dealing with high volumes. At scale, it is expensive, and latency sometimes occurs. Using CloudWatch for logging and debugging requires additional configuration, whereas other solutions like Kong might offer these out-of-the-box.

I have been using API Gateway for about three years.

I would rate the stability as eight out of ten. It is quite stable.

Scalability isn't the primary issue but rather performance at high volumes can cause latency.

Technical support is excellent, deserving a ten out of ten rating. There are no issues with support.

Positive

We used Kong in previous labs before using Amazon API Gateway.

Setup is straightforward, and it is easy to maintain.

Our ROI is close to fifty percent. API Gateway saves time and secures my infrastructure, allowing effective deployment.

API Gateway is pricey. I would rate the pricing as nine out of ten. It is expensive.

Besides Amazon API Gateway, we have used Kong Gateway, and we also utilize EC2 for other purposes.

The product rates at nine out of ten as an overall solution.

My use case for Amazon API Gateway involves using it for backend APIs and mostly private API Gateways. We utilize it within the context of a microservices architecture. The front-end technology connects through the API Gateway to backend services running on Lambda, making the API Gateway an endpoint for reaching backend services.

Amazon API Gateway provides easy scalability and fast deployment, making it less time-consuming to spin up services. Its serverless technology allows our applications to scale seamlessly according to demand.

A most valuable feature of Amazon API Gateway is how quickly we can connect to backend services and have APIs accessible from anywhere. This flexibility supports our operations efficiently.

I'd appreciate improvements in the user interface to make it more understandable, especially for new AWS users. Documentation can be confusing at times, so more details on the connection between the API Gateway and backend services would be helpful. Additionally, a local version of the API Gateway would be beneficial for testing purposes without incurring extra costs.

I have been using Amazon API Gateway for almost two and a half years now.

Amazon API Gateway has proven to be very stable, with a stability rating of ten out of ten. The high stability ensures that we do not encounter workflow issues, which is critical for maintaining uninterrupted operations.

Regarding scalability, I would rate Amazon API Gateway at eight out of ten. Although we have not faced challenges, we have not tested scalability on a large scale either. In our typical use cases, scalability aligns with our expectations and requirements.

The support from AWS was adequate when we needed assistance, particularly during the setup of a private API Gateway. There was initial difficulty due to unclear documentation, but the AWS team's help was effective, even though it took some time to get the correct answers.

Neutral

The initial setup was moderately complex; I would rate it a six out of ten. Understanding the service's intricacies and integration with Lambda was the major challenge initially, but it became easier over time.

The deployment process typically involves only one person, which is myself. Maintenance does not require many people due to its serverless nature.

The pricing of Amazon API Gateway is cost-effective unless there is a very high volume of requests. I would rate the pricing as reasonable, giving it a score of five out of ten.

For newcomers to Amazon API Gateway, it's advisable to watch a few AWS videos to grasp how it works. The documentation can be difficult to follow initially, so supplementing it with external learning resources can provide a better understanding.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We primarily use it for real-time use cases where we have used Lambda with the API Gateway. So, the backend is a Lambda server. We are implementing a serverless architecture with the API Gateway. 

We've implemented risk score models within the Lambda. Thus, whenever someone requires a risk assessment for a prospect in need of a loan, they access our Amazon API Gateway. In the backend, it triggers the Lambda service.

So, within the Lambda, our ML model predicts whether the customer falls into the high-risk or low-risk category. Then, it sends a response to our frontend application, which is an Android-based application.

Currently, our use cases are relatively simple. Even though we host ten different models, the use cases are similar. We have configured the API gateway for various URLs and receive hits from different services like tractors, two-wheelers, and mobiles. 

The most valuable aspects are its user-friendliness and simplicity. These two features make it easy to work with. 

Additionally, it's cost-effective, even as our workload and the number of APIs we manage have increased. 

The integration with other API services, such as Lambda, EC2, and Kubernetes, is also incredibly useful.

The main concern is connectivity. When someone requests a mobile score, we need to query the backend DB using prospect numbers. This involves going from AWS to the Oracle DB in Oracle Cloud, fetching data through SQL queries, and then feeding it back to the model running on AWS. This process takes a considerable amount of time.

It's like dealing with connectivity issues because of the direct connection. Although I find AWS API Gateway better than Oracle in many aspects, the network connectivity challenges force us to consider using Oracle API Gateway for our new product, LOS (Load Origination System). This new product will involve extensive interaction with the databases, and we cannot afford network connectivity issues. This is the only drawback I've encountered.

Even though AWS API Gateway is better in several respects, we are leaning towards Oracle API Gateway due to its compatibility with our Oracle backend databases. Traditionally, enterprise databases are Oracle databases, and that's why we work with Oracle Cloud. We're also exploring MuleSoft, which offers a wide range of features and services, although cost is a concern.

I have been using this solution for three to four years. 

Stability-wise, I haven't come across any challenges. I'd rate it a solid ten.

In terms of scalability, I haven't encountered any issues with API Gateway. We've significantly increased our traffic from hitting it once or twice a minute to now hitting it ten to fifteen times within a minute. In an hour, we're receiving hundreds of hits. So, it's performing excellently.

We did require technical support recently, but it was related to Lambda rather than the API Gateway. We were facing issues with response times on our requests. Whenever we raised a support request (SR), the response was swift. Within 15 minutes, we had a support engineer allocated via Amazon, and we were able to resolve the issue promptly.  The support was really fast and prompt. 

Positive

We're using both Amazon and Oracle API Gateway. We need to decide which one to use for our iOS application since our backend DBs are in Oracle.  So, I work with both. Our cloud is on Amazon, and our backend development is in Oracle Cloud.

The initial setup is very simple. It takes around five minutes to deploy an API. It is very simple. 

I would rate the pricing nine out of ten, with one being expensive and ten being less price, leaning towards cost-effective.

We primarily use Amazon products because they align well with the solutions provided by our third-party vendors. This allows us to keep our data within our cloud while ensuring seamless integration without exposing sensitive information.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. There's room for enhancements. Currently, API Gateway lacks some governance features that MuleSoft offers, and there are additional features that could make it even better.

We mainly use these APIs for east-to-west communication within our internal system and partner collaboration. While most companies prefer tool-based API management for partner collaboration, for internal consumption, and integration between application insight, we tend to use cloud-native tools provided by AWS.

The most valuable features are the standard ones that APIs offer. Depending on the requirements, Azure API management's throttling feature is used for continuous consumption. Otherwise, we rely on the default features available. 

Since it is mainly for internal communication, we haven't received any concerns or requests for better tools or additional features. The initial tools provided by Amazon API Gateway suffice for our needs.

The only issue we've noticed is a lack of awareness when it comes to partner collaboration. Customers prefer using separate API gateways for scalability. Apart from that, feature-wise, most API management solutions offer similar features and learning resources on how to use them.

The pricing could be improved. In cases where customers require real-time sync or real-time calling groups with IoT, the volume of data and time lag become a concern. AWS charges for data ingress and egress, which could be further reduced. This would be helpful for customers dealing with large amounts of data coming in or going out from their systems. So, improving pricing for volume data transfer is something that can be considered, as it has been consistent feedback from customers.

It has been around four years since it became publicly available. We have tier-one partnerships with all the hyperscalers, including AWS, Azure, and GCP. 

It is a stable solution. I would rate the stability a nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. It is very scalable, and we don't need to hire additional engineers.

Our clients are primarily enterprise businesses. We have a strong customer base in log integrations.

The support is good, especially if you are a premium partner with AWS or have active scalable support. If you have a tier-one partnership, the support has been phenomenal. 

However, if the partnership is lower, it may take more time or have SLAs involved. But overall, the support team is more receptive than the infrastructure team. 

Positive

Currently, we mainly focus on cloud-native solutions. We have a couple of partnerships, including Dell Boomi and MuleSoft. We also had a customer requirement for Apigee design, so I was looking for a comparison between API management with cloud-native tools and their offerings. 

Generally, we recommend using API management provided by the Hyperscale industry, such as AWS, Azure, and GCP Virtual Desktop.

The initial setup is straightforward. With big data forms and CI/CD automation, it becomes very straightforward.

Most of the time, we have seen hybrid and cloud deployments being preferred by our customers. That has been the dominant use case for most of them.

The Amazon configuration IT process usually takes a couple of hours. If the requirements are clear and there are no additional requests from the customer's side, it's just a matter of a couple of hours to set up the new components for straightforward and simple requirements.

The pricing can be expensive depending on the use case. If there is a lot of data processing involved, it can become a costly solution. However, it is still better than other products available in the market. Since our customers are mostly large enterprises, they prefer not to go for open-source alternatives or cheaper limited services. They prefer to stick with what is available with the Hyperscale providers.

We use API tools from Amazon, Azure, and sometimes GCP depending on where the customer workloads are. For Azure, we use Azure EDP management, and for Amazon, we use generative VPN management. Most of our requirements revolve around Azure APM management and AWS APM engine.

The features we look at are mostly similar across the board. There aren't many differentiating factors. For example, in terms of orchestration, Azure offers step functions or Lambda functions, which are available in AWS as well. 

The customers tend to use the native features unless they need to work with different API gateways for scalability reasons. The only issue we've noticed is a lack of awareness when it comes to partner collaboration. Customers prefer using separate API gateways for scalability. Apart from that, feature-wise, most API management solutions offer similar features and learning resources on how to use them.

We would definitely recommend sticking to native solutions because then you have one Hyperscale provider supporting the applications, storage, compute, and APIs. 

Another aspect to consider is the security features within the API. If you need to collaborate outside the organization, there are numerous security features available through the Hyperscale provider that can be leveraged. 

However, if there is a very specific requirement that the native API Gateway doesn't fulfill, then you can explore other external products or solutions.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use Amazon API Gateway to expose some APIs. I worked for three companies that mostly used API Gateway for exposed services and complex use cases like expose headers. The solution is used to personalize responses, provide more simulations, and facilitate communication between the services. The solution is also used to direct some requests to Lambda and ECS.

Amazon API Gateway can integrate with ECS and Lambda. With Amazon API Gateway, you can have massive integrations that are quickly integrated.

Amazon API Gateway is not as complete as Apigee and needs to be improved by adding more features to become a more robust application.

For some use cases, Apigee is more complete than Amazon API Gateway. With Apigee, you can integrate some endpoints with better latency. Apigee has the cloud EPG Microgateway resource, which can be put inside our Kubernetes cluster. Integration with Apigee can have more efficiency in terms of latency. Apigee is an enterprise architecture application wherein you can use a proxy.

I have been using this solution for about three years.

Amazon API Gateway is a good solution that works well most of the time. With Amazon API Gateway, I've not encountered unavailability or any issue that became a disaster.

You don't need to worry about the scalability of Amazon API Gateway because AWS takes responsibility for the solution's scalability.

I opened some tickets for use cases integrating with Lambda, and the technical support was very good. Most companies I work with use an enterprise plan from AWS. You open a chat, have your response, know what to do or what is wrong, and can resolve the problem. Amazon API Gateway's technical support is very efficient.

Positive

I have experience with Apigee.

Amazon API Gateway is very easy to set up. You can create a platform template using ChatGPT or write one with your hands.

My first Amazon API Gateway deployment took five to ten minutes. My boss requested me to expose the Lambda for internal use cases. I didn't have any experience with Amazon API Gateway at that moment, but I was able to expose the API, which was very, very easy.

In my previous company, they had a lot of people responsible for the solution's maintenance. Developers are responsible for personalizing the configurations inside Amazon API Gateway. They need to understand the requirements of the API and maximize site API. At that moment, I was responsible for having the permissions and putting the information in Amazon API Gateway. We need two or three people responsible for around 30 APIs and some developers.

Since it's a serverless solution, Amazon API Gateway is not so expensive. The pricing depends on the number of requests you have in your API, but it is adjustable. Amazon API Gateway is very good in terms of price because other solutions have a specific key price you need to pay monthly. However, with Amazon API Gateway, you pay for what you use.

If you use minimum requests inside Amazon API Gateway, you have to pay one to five dollars. However, if you have a lot of APIs, you have to pay $ 200 to $ 500. The pricing depends on how many requests you have.

If you use AWS services, do not hesitate to go for Amazon API Gateway. If you are not using AWS or if you are not AWS cloud-native, you can consider using other solutions like Apigee or Kong. If you are looking to have a serverless application, then you need to use it again.

Overall, I rate Amazon API Gateway an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as an API gateway. The APIs are managed by serverless applications. It's an API gateway from Layer 7.

The integration with Comdata is very good.

The product is affordable.

It is easy to set up. It is also quick to deploy.

The solution is reliable. It is very stable. 

The solution can scale well. 

The solution could improve signature validation. They should offer signature validation if there is any request. There needs to be some sort of mechanism. They need to be able to validate the signature at the API gateway level. 

I've used the solution for about three years. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. There are no improvements needed. The performance is good. 

The solution is scalable. There's no problem if we need to expand. We have around 600 APIs working right now. We have plans to increase usage in the future. 

I did not use any other solution previously.

There are multiple ways to set up the solution. It's very simple and straightforward. 

The deployment shouldn't take too long, depending on the requirements. We can do it in just a minute. The work is very minimal. 

First, we set up the routes and set them up with the network, and in terms of integration, if there are any authentications needed, we do that as well. 

We do not need many staff members to handle deployment and maintenance. 

We can handle the setup ourselves. It's very easy.

We've seen value in using the solution. It is worth the money. 

The licensing is paid monthly. It's a minimal charge. It is very affordable. There are no extra costs. 

We did not evaluate other options. 

I am an end-user.

I've been using the latest version of the solution. 

I highly recommend the product. 

I'd rate the product ten out of ten.