Akana API Management vs SwaggerHub comparison

"Good interface, intuitive solution."

"The tool's authentication mechanism is easy to implement. We had to define a few parameters."

"It allowed us to publish and replace pre-essential transactions in one place, with a uniformity in terms of control and policies."

"You can click & play and add the notation in a human-readable form. Spotlight is also very good in the graphical design of APIs."

"The scalability is endless."

"The product's initial setup phase was easy and not at all difficult."

"The most valuable features are the collaboration between multiple teams and the control and distribution of specifications."

"Code generation is one of the important features of SwaggerHub. We design our API, and we can generate a very rich codebase and add to it. The code generation feature is very valuable."

"It is a stable solution."

"I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten."

"The tool's most valuable feature is licensing."

"Lacks an integrated billing feature."

"Akana API Management needs to improve its documentation."

"The product has new features that we are going to implement in the next few months, such as API management and analytic reporting."

"We have to use additional tools to test APIs."

"SwaggerHub could be improved with better integration for tools."

"It has limited functionality...Unfortunately, some of its features are not what we need."

"The review process should be improved. There seem to be some gaps, at least for us, for the editing part because we would like to have a full request review mechanism. They support some comments, but it is really hard to manage those comments. We would like to use the full request. Therefore, we are now looking to integrate with repositories. It has integration with Bitbucket and GitHub, but we have some internal constraints, and we need to move some of the repositories to GitHub. Our source code is on-premise in Bitbucket, and it was a bit of a problem for us to integrate. Now we are transitioning our repositories to GitHub, and hopefully, we can enable the integration. This will probably solve the problem with the review and approval. Its customization should also be improved. There are limitations around the support for the developer portal. There should be more customization options for the website that you can use as a developer portal. Currently, it has only Swagger UI with minimal customization. You cannot actually add additional pages and documentation for explaining concepts and general things. That's why we have started to look around to see what other tools are doing. They should also allow tagging on the API. We would like to add some tagging on the API to reflect certain things. Currently, any metadata that you would like to have has to be a part of the spec. You cannot do anything else. It should also have support for Open API 3.1, which was released at the beginning of the year. It would be great to be able to switch to that."

"SwaggerHub lacks in terms of integrations. They have APIs integrated, and they also have some connectors, but they don't have integration with many of the things that we use. For example, for connecting with SVN, we had to implement external scripts. So, they should work on the integration because currently, we have to work on the integration with our DevOps, continuous delivery, or continuous deployment. It would be great if these integrations are built-in. Mainly, we would like it to integrate with SVN and Jira."

"It could be more intuitive compared to one of its competitors."

"More integration and usability with the cloud microservices would be nice"

"SwaggerHub's UI needs to be improved as it looks very old school."

"For us, the pricing and licensing policies were for an on-premise installation with a fixed cost structure, that matched our budgeting policies."

"The tool is cheap."

"It has a yearly subscription, but I am not sure."

"The management considers it a bit expensive. At first, we wanted to purchase a license for 100 users, but we went for a license for only 15 users. Its cost is $10,220 per year."