Axway AMPLIFY API Management Reviews

We make use of Axway's API gateway API management tool.

Its integration with middle wear is similar to ESB. We provide integrations as we are a swift services bureau. We've got customers that are banks and in some use cases. We integrate these banks with their own back office and we tend to provide integration for that. 

We also make use of the solution to build a marketplace of financial services, which is basically our own solution. 

For other customers, we do integration of the various source systems, back-office systems, legacy systems, etc. We also do file transformation where we take messages for customers in their environments and translate it to industry formats. 

There's drag and drop functionality so that you do not need to have a senior expert developer to make use of the tool. You can get more of your staff trained up to be able to use it as it's not overly technical. 

It provides very strong security functionality to protect information in an easier way. 

It's more of a benchmark for financial services. You can better protect the information and customer information as it's got a very strong focus on security. 

The flexibility is very good. You can do on-premise and you can do cloud. That's really a strong factor in our market as many large customers in our market still want to have an on-premise solution due to the fact that they want to maintain control over their data.

Previously, the solution did not have a subscription as an option, however, now it also has a subscription model, which is great.

The documentation is fairly good and readily available.

The pricing could be more competitive. 

The installation process is a bit complex and it could be a lot simpler.

Currently, there's a strong focus on microservices, which is already there and already available. They're already able to deploy in dockerized containers. In that sense, there's nothing that I can actually see that is missing from my side.

We've been dealing with the solution for the last three years.

The product has got strong security features, from a stability point of view. There's a large footprint in the financial services sector, where you deal with daily transactions in the millions. It has a very strong focus on stability, and our experience as well has been that, as we also use it in a payments environment, it's been proven to be quite stable. 

We have probably eight people who make use of the solution in our organization.

It is a solution that is strong enough to be used by enterprise-level customers. That is the target market. However, it provides such strong features, that it is used in our environment by FinTech startups, and also by other mid-range customers that are not really at the enterprise level. It solves their issue of integration and to decouple their back-office systems so that they can develop one in a specific area, and make their system changes. It's a very versatile product; many organizations can benefit from it.

The solution is scalable. That is a benefit of the platform in itself. It provides you with scalability so that you don't have to develop all your back-office systems. The product itself is scalable in the sense that you can spin up additional environments very quickly. 

Its price scalability is also very good as you don't necessarily pay for extra usage. You pay a fixed subscription. In terms of dealing with high volumes, it is also scalable in the sense that you can just add processing capacity where you need to.

We actually provide support to customers. We provide remote support as well as on-premise support. From a support point of view, we are happy, as it provides a lot of analytics. With the analytics, you can very quickly drill through transactions and see where there are issues. 

We don't foresee any difficulty with the support of the solution, and we are support providers. It's always important to have someone, to have a vendor that provides you with at least level three support so that your operational teams can be at their best productivity-wise.

The support desk is very good. I deal with them regularly. You raise a ticket as normal and they will then guide you through to a resolution.

The initial setup is a bit complex. 

It is now Dockerized containers. That makes the whole process of installation and upgrades much more simplified. Their version 7.7, the last version, means that from here on there will not be a big change. You have to completely build an environment, however, after that, you will only patch it. 

It's software that has complexity. It's a middleware system that is set up in various environments, however, it needs to align with the corporate policies on security and DMZ. You have to design it and then you have to build it. You probably will be okay during implementation if you make use of certified technicians to assist you with building the solution.

The positive with the solution is that, once you are operational, you should be able to maintain the solution with a very small team. There are instances where there's a footprint of multiple installations - more than 20 for a global organization. Yet, they've got just one core team that actually maintains all of those installations. That illustrates the sort of scalability it has when it comes to supporting a large footprint.

If our clients need it, we can provide maintenance for them. We can do tasks such as patching, updates, etc. Customers, of course, can also handle maintenance themselves.

It's best to get a professional technician to handle the installation as you want to make sure that it's configured correctly to get the best use out of it. Once you are operational, you can really make use of your own skills to maintain it.

The pricing is fair. They're still investing in development and provide much-needed functionality and with the assurance that it will not leak your data or provide you with gaps in your risk. From a pricing point of view, I don't think it's on the high side. I would say it's a mid-market price and there's flexibility in their pricing options. 

We evaluated a number of API solutions, including WSO2, Apigee, and IBM and in the typical use cases where we deal with enterprise and financial customers. We found that some of the solutions either did not have good enough documentation, good enough support or maybe a lack of on-premise functionality. Pricing on some options was also an issue. We made the decision to use Axway after looking at it and others across these and a variety of other parameters.

For example, in the case of WSO2, our Financial Services client made use of it, however, for us, it was very difficult to understand and to problem solve that solution, and documentation played a role as it wasn't the best. 

We're also partners with IBM. The platform for us, the number one issue, is its price. On top of that, it's really more for the adoption in a mid-market space. 

We looked at Apigee and others where it's more power-orientated and that doesn't solve the problem that financial services, healthcare, and other vendors had as they wanted to have better security and have the data in on-premise.

What we found, in the European market at least, was that Axway has very strong links to financial services, transport logistics, healthcare, and banks. These are its primary industries. For us, it was important that the solution we chose had a strong knowledge base across those industries, and not only focused on a specific industry.

Some of the other vendors have got a very wide focus. For us it was easier to find agreements when looking at Axway's Roadmap. It was really important to see, that the business is focused around the solution and they execute on their Roadmap and develop out the solution continuously.

We're largely a customer, although we are consultants and refer Axway often.

While we use the solution's cloud deployment model, we also engage with the on-premises version as well.

I'd advise other companies considering a solution like this to first go and determine their strategy around APIs in their business. That's really important. There needs to be a plan around how a company is going to manage APIs. A business needs to ask itself: What is the digital transformation strategy? They need to approach this as a strategic investment and already have some strategy behind it. 

It really is core to your digital transformation, to your ability to unlock new revenue channels for a lot of businesses or to reduce cost in your back office systems. Therefore, there must be some sort of strategic benefit that you see before you actually evaluate API platforms. 

Once you've got a strategy, you're sure that this matches your strategy. You probably need to also look at the first use cases that you want to do. You have to find a use case that shows a business benefit to deploying. It doesn't help you implement the solution just so that lots of people can use it for different things. You must find some anchor or use case that you will be able to sell. Then it will become a benefit to your internal business.

From there on it's really, really important to identify integration partners that are certified that can actually assist you from a business point of view, to deploy quickly. The quicker you get the benefit, the quicker you get the new revenue from whatever you want it to do. After that, it's crucial to internalize the knowledge around the solution. It is important to do good skills transfer so that you can have confidence in using the solution long-term.

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

We have a service running on Xray Cloud and we have established an internal API gateway platform. It is used for customer-centric APIs.

This product allows us to abstract the customer interface from the internal APIs.

The most valuable features are security enforcement and throttling.

The API Mocking tools need to be improved. To start with an API-first approach would benefit this product.

We sometimes have issues with some of the functions because they do not work very well. Specifically, there are some policy-related functions that should be enhanced for better usability and maintenance.

The developer portal is restricted and it should be enhanced to handle direct API managers. This would be a plus because right now, the strategy is more focused on AMPLIFY, which is hosted in the cloud. However, we are not always interested in publishing our API on the cloud from the vendor. Rather, we want to have it in our own cloud. The only product that we can install on-premises is the API Portal, and it is restricted.

We began working with Axway AMPLIFY API Management one year ago.

Technical support is good. We get the support that is required.

I have worked with some open-source products, but that is another aspect.

The initial setup is not complex. 

We do not use point-to-point APIs.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We use Axway AMPLIFY API Management for bank payments and bank transactions.

We like the portal for documentation a lot. We also like the gateway. It has a lot of flexibility in terms of trying to meet our specific needs.

The portal still has room for improvement. This is in terms of speeding up the overall process of creating new documentation and new information about the APIs. 

They should also improve the way that we upgrade from one version to another. In our case, it's been very troublesome. Technical support, although it's very good, there is room for improvement.

Our company has worked with this solution for five years.

Axway AMPLIFY API Management is very stable. We haven't had any problems in terms of stability.

Scalability is very good.

Technical support is very good. They communicate and provide answers very fast, but I think there's room for improvement.

The initial setup of Axway AMPLIFY API Management isn't easy, but it's not extremely hard in any sense. It becomes complex when you have local customizations. When a customer requires some changes to the UI to get it according to their look and feel, it can get complicated. It takes about two months to implement this solution.

The company evaluated Apigee and CA API. I believe we chose Axway AMPLIFY API Management because of scalability and local support.

I would recommend Axway AMPLIFY API Management for scalability and for how it's open for customizations. We can customize it to accomplish your specific needs, like the look and feel. But we still have some issues when we do a lot of customization and when migrating from one version to another.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Axway AMPLIFY API Management a nine.

We use it as a transport mechanism. 

I don't believe the Salesforce has been fully utilized yet. It gives us quick engagement.

It would be great if they have an asset report. It's hard to get support for that. 

I have been using Axway for two to three years. 

We faced some complications with the environment during the setup. That's an issue we've experienced before. The support is in Malaysia so it's hard for us to get support or understanding. The biggest challenge is always the correct time zone.

Our partners offer us support. 

Before Axway, we are using RPG, which is more on the Cloud and open-source engagement. Management decided to want to go for one price set. Axway is a good product according to Gartner which is why we started to adopt it. 

The initial setup was complex. We deployed through our partners. They helped us to set it up properly. 

I would classify it as being expensive. 

You should have an understanding of the capability of the API. MuleSoft has a very straightforward and good framework that allows the customer to follow through. They understand how we can create and maximize capability in many ways. With Axway, if you start to use and understand it, then you are able to enhance it. However, that needs time to develop. It also takes a lot of time to actually bring it up to the principal site.

I would rate Axway a seven out of ten. Not a ten because of the pricing and technical support.

We use this solution to offer API for our on-premises environment applications, as well as API from a cloud perspective. We have a hybrid-cloud deployment model.

This is a SaaS platform and it is running permanently.

Centralized API Platform allow us better reusability and monitoring

The administration tool for this solution is good.

The API has a good response time.

This solution does have some limitations regarding the deployment model. This has nothing to do with the features. Rather, we are deployed in a single region, and not everywhere. Our biggest concern is to have a solution that can be used all over the world, in all regions.

The scalability of this solution could be improved.

This solution is stable.

This solution is not as scalable as the AWS API gateway.

We have dealt with technical support for this solution, and we are satisfied with their service.

No previous solutions for API Management.

From my point of view, the deployment was not easy. However, we are subscribing to a SAAS offering from Axway, and normally, they just provide us what is needed. The setup, really, is their problem, and we did not spend too much energy on our side.

The deployment is completed in a number of hours (infra as a code)

Implementation by vendor team, skilled people

The platform is more expensive than a full cloud solution like AWS API GW.

Setup cost depends on deployment target : on premise / shared cloud tenant / dedicated cloud tenant.

I have also used the AWS API gateway, and it is more scalable than this solution.

One of these tools is not easier to use than the other, both of them have good admin tools, and both have a good API response time.

The main difference with Axway is that it is intended to be deployed on-premises, as well as on the cloud. It is not a full cloud architecture, so it may not be as agile as a pure cloud provider.

This is a good product, but we need to work outside of our single region.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Our primary use for this product is to control how we expose APIs.

The features that are most valuable to us are the portal, authorization, and the extensive filters which allow us to make the policies which serve the user.

I think that the program's team management capabilities can be better as far as working in groups.

I really am interested in several of the new features already announced and being offered in the release of version 7.6.2. That is the main reason why we want to upgrade. Beyond those features, I don't know that anything needs to be added right now.

This product is reliable and stable.

Ten years ago, the idea of scalability was different than it is now. Because of the possible uses of virtual machines and containers, scalability becomes a moot question. I don't think anything is not scalable anymore as long as you take the right direction in deployment.

We did have the opportunity to use technical support a little bit for some questions. Their work was okay. We were satisfied. They showed good care in response time and they didn't have problems figuring things out.

Before using Axway I used Apigee. There are a few main differences between Axway API Management Plus and Google's Apigee. Axway is a little easier to deploy and it has a lot more filters. So out of the box, it looks like there is more to it than Apigee. But I think the GUI of Apigee is a little bit nicer than the Axway GUI. It's a little easier to navigate and use.

The initial setup was really straightforward. By comparison, I used Apigee (Google) before and setting up the Axway product was really 10-times easier and more straightforward.

As far as total deployment time, the UAT (User Acceptance Testing) deployment was done in about three days. Production deployment with all the security testing took about a week total.

We did the implementation ourselves with in-house staff, so we did not need additional support.

If I were a team going to deploy this solution now, I would probably deploy it using the newer containerized solutions for better flexibility. 

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as a ten. It does everything that we expect it to do and is developing features to match innovation in technology.

Our primary use for the solution is providing APIs to external parties through communication protocols.

It has not really improved our organization as there are better solutions currently that could be deployed.

For what we do, the API portal capability is the most valuable feature.

The product community is not good. We don't get a lot of support from them in resolving issues.

A feature that would be good to have is support for microservices and containerization.

The setup is actually pretty complex and could be improved so maybe in the next update they could do something to simplify setup, make Axway more stable, and get rid of existing technical issues.

I do not think the product is as stable as some of the other products on the market. We do experience some technical problems now and again, so the stability could be better.

We have not really done much consideration for scalability. The support is limited for that, I think, and the product is still in the early phase of improving the scalability feature. We do not really have plans to scale up the use of the product for the current client using it. We have only one person maintaining it.

Regretfully, we are in constant touch with the technical support team, but we don't get the kind of support and answers that we really need. I would say that the technical support is average and could be improved.

We use several different solutions in working with different clients. With one client, we started out using Axway but with other clients I use different products depending on their needs and what they want to do.

The initial setup for the product was complex. The instructions are not easy to follow. When we were deploying some of the additional capabilities of the product or doing other integration, it's very difficult to set that up and resolve the issue in the installation process. Once the initial set up was done, then the additional deployments were actually very quick.

We did the implementation ourselves.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this product at around a five. Some of the features and capabilities are not as mature as other products on the market, some features are not as easy to use and may be better as the product matures. In my opinion, there are other solutions that are currently better than Axway.

As far as giving advice to those considering the product, I suggest doing some pilot projects to check as to whether or not Axway suits your requirements before choosing to deploy.