"The opportunity for customization is really vast and it is a really good feature built into the product."
"The developer portal is very useful to customers."
"The pricing is okay."
"It nice and easy for the clients and those using the product to access the product's help resources."
"This is a front-layer gateway that helps to improve our overall performance."
"It is scalable."
"I think the most valuable features are the security features. Of course, the user access control is the same as the security. The other very important issue is the sandboxing capability of Apigee."
"The most valuable features are scalability and technical support."
"The biggest advantage of OpenLegacy was how simple the technology was. We were able to build out the OpenLegacy parts very quickly. We put together a couple hundred APIs in six months."
"It is possible to connect a service to a mainframe program or back transaction in a matter of minutes or hours at the most."
"An area for improvement would be to provide more information while troubleshooting."
"The user interface could be better. It could be easier to navigate and more user-friendly."
"The solution could add even more functionalities."
"In terms of the functionalities of a typical API gateway, Apigee is actually doing its job, but when it involves integration with backend applications, which some gateways have, I don't believe it has this functionality. You have to do Java or do some other low-level coding before you are able to do the integration. Apigee has a lot of components, which means that management will be a bit difficult. It probably has ten different components, and all of these components leverage open-source utilities, such as NGINX. When those open-source vendors upgrade their utility, Apigee usually lags behind because they need to do a lot of tests and any required development in their own platform. They need to do rigorous testing to make sure that nothing breaks. Because of that, it takes them a while to upgrade whatever components have been upgraded by the open-source vendor that owns the utility. We've been chasing them for a particular upgrade for well over a year and a half, and they have not done that upgrade. It is creating a security risk for us as an enterprise, but that upgrade has not been done, even though the open-source vendor, the owner of the utility, has upgraded it a long time ago."
"Apigee could do more to make users aware of what is available in the add-ons."
"Apigee's user interface could be more straightforward and have more options. Also, it would be nice if it were ready to work out of the box without so much configuration."
"Sometimes there are glitches, which means there's still room for improvement in the platform."
"The integration could be improved within the solution. There is a need to pay more attention to this."
"I'd like to see OpenLegacy develop its low-code/no-code (LCNC) solutions. They've expanded somewhat their horizons for integration beyond mainframe CICS, which is their sweet spot. They have some tooling in that area, but it's not as good as it needs to be."
"The pricing of the solution could be more flexible and allow for once-off payment versus annual licensing. This would be more appealing to companies in Latin America."
Apigee is ranked 1st in API Management with 41 reviews while OpenLegacy is ranked 19th in API Management with 2 reviews. Apigee is rated 8.2, while OpenLegacy is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Apigee writes "Good automation and documentation with good performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenLegacy writes "The biggest advantage is how simple the technology was". Apigee is most compared with Microsoft Azure API Management, Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager, Amazon API Gateway, IBM API Connect and Kong Enterprise, whereas OpenLegacy is most compared with Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager, IBM API Connect, Layer7 API Management, SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite and WSO2 API Manager. See our Apigee vs. OpenLegacy 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.
