We performed a comparison between Layer7 API Management and Tyk 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."Mobile app capabilities is good for building mobile apps to consume developed APIs. Also, the API Portal capabilities are very nice, up to and including the ability to do monetization. Security features are exhaustive, with several adapters to all leading identity suites."
"Some of the performance matrix that API Gateway gives off, we monitor them via SNMP traps, and then we tie them into our monitoring system. You can actually monitor some of the latencies and some of the performance aspects of both API Gateways, as well back end services. So having that line of sight surely helps in terms DevOps."
"The most valuable feature is that it enables me to present data in the format that the client wants to consume it. That client might be a visualization tool, that client might be a report, that client might be a customer's API requirements."
"A big win for CA was the expertise of the local country support plus having support staff on site in a matter of hours, if required."
"Layer7 API Management's availability on an on-premises deployment model, actually decreases the production time if its users have any issues at the server level."
"It allows us to keep clear traceability of the changes made in each of our APIs."
"We have more than 50 applications in the backend. We monitor the infrastructure through a database monitoring tool. Our daily tasks involve working on P1 incidents, managing change requests, conducting patching updates, working on P2 tickets, backend server certificate renewals, etc."
"The Gateway can front our APIs very easily."
"The most valuable feature is the load balancing with the circuit-breaker function."
"You can set up workflows and write limited pieces of logic."
"The portal for developers that this solution provides has great functionality."
"It is a good product for API management."
"The scalability is very good. That was a key factor in the selection, like how it could be pushed to high volume and scalability, which seemed to be very good."
"The feature I find most valuable is that this solution allows us to manage our security."
"What is really important is that they offer the solution as a service, on a subscription or monthly basis, which will make it more attractive. That is where the market is headed. There are competitors within the industry that are doing that currently. I would encourage CA to do that."
"Broadcom's technical support team needs improvement."
"From the last version, they have added more dashboard support, but there is still a lot they need to improve. In terms of monitoring, it's almost all covered. The interface can be improved, though."
"The developer portal needs to fully supported SOAP services (including WSDL publication with security), it would certainly push adoption for us."
"As well as the SOA Gateway - that is, the API Gateway; we call it the SOA Gateway - we also are now deploying the developer portal component of the SOA Gateway. That has limitations."
"It would be nice if we could create APIs directly from Swagger files. We're doing that ourselves with a middle layer. But if you could integrate with open API Swagger specs, and then just create a Swagger and upload it to the gateway and it would create all my API template policy, and would apply the OAuth restrictions, the types of security restrictions I have on there, that would be pretty cool."
"The architecture of the solution does not allow for flexibility in using different components for the gateway architecture."
"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."
"It is a young product and does not have the kind of brand recognition that would make it a more popular solution with our clients."
"In terms of our usage, the main area of concern is that they tend to build enhancements slightly ahead of the considerations for what those enhancements and extensions are. So it could be slightly better communication with the customer base that would be my main issue with them."
"Sometimes when new features are released, they are not immediately stable."
"We ran it for a while, but then we decided to move away from Tyk, because Tyk's cloud version, the SaaS version, has a significant limitation of limited flexibility, so you can't program very much."
"I would like to see some additional features like having some extensions for .NET core because we use it for our back-end language."
"We would like a better tool for generating documentation for the APIs to be developed."
Layer7 API Management is ranked 10th in API Management with 109 reviews while Tyk is ranked 17th in API Management with 6 reviews. Layer7 API Management is rated 8.4, while Tyk is rated 7.6. 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 Tyk writes "Simple to install, has many features, but lacks support for multiple programming languages". Layer7 API Management is most compared with Apigee, Kong Gateway Enterprise, Amazon API Gateway, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager and webMethods.io Integration, whereas Tyk is most compared with Apache APISIX, Traefik Enterprise, Apigee, Microsoft Azure API Management and IBM API Connect. See our Layer7 API Management vs. Tyk 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.
