We performed a comparison between Layer7 API Management and webMethods.io Integration 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."Every API that we get from external or from internal goes through this layer first, and it should not be a bottleneck. That was the problem we had before. Now it's no longer a bottleneck. It's more like a throughput, this process is less than 10 milliseconds for any particular API."
"When I have used technical support they helped me a lot. Sometimes they took a long time to respond because we had very complex issues that we asked them for help with, but I think it is a very good service."
"There are a couple aspects of performance. One is just speed and uptime, and it's stellar in that regard. The other is, how much effort is it to put it in place in the first place, and then how much effort is it to keep it operational. That's where its real strength is. I'm able to do things quickly and easily that I couldn't do before."
"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."
"This improved our organization, because it gives the management data to discuss for the next course of action and it suggests what to work on, as the next thing."
"I love the API Gateway, especially the architecture, in terms of the composability of the policies. We approach it from a very software-engineering approach.We build on the policies, like legal blocks, and we deploy them throughout different environments. It's been working out great for us."
"What I found most valuable in Layer7 API Management is that you can launch the API from the gateway quickly and securely, making it less complicated to deploy APIs. I also like that Layer7 API Management has a good portal and dashboards and that the dashboards show you statistics regarding how many people used the API, etc."
"Has great drag-and-drop features and requires minimal coding."
"The solution is scalable."
"There's hardware, software and application integration, providing hosting flexibility."
"It's easy to construct new interfaces like apps and client portals."
"Our use case is for integration factory for SAP. It is mostly for SAP integration."
"Oracle's self-service capabilities, of which we make extensive use, is the most valuable feature."
"I like the tool's scalability."
"The connectivity that the tool provides, along with the functionalities needed for our company's business, are some of the beneficial aspects of the product."
"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."
"As the number of instances increases, its complexity of installation increases if you do not use the OVA."
"we cannot add gateways on the fly because there are a lot of moving parts; endpoint connectivity is one of them. If we add more nodes then the rate-limiting feature is affected. This kind of gateway always has the scalability issue. But, I think CA is coming up with its Microgateway, which is in Beta. If they stabilize their Microgateway platform, we could do very well in terms of scalability."
"I would like for the new release to allow us to speed up code generation. The integration with CICD could also be more seamless."
"It needs better mobile features and HA configuration."
"The product needs to keep up with newer trends even though customers might not be requesting it yet."
"The implementation of CA API Management was complex. It is a complicated solution. You have to know so much IT knowledge to do the implementation."
"There is still room for improvement for the CA API Developer Portal. It is still not on par with what the competencies are."
"Rules engine processes and BPM processes should be improved."
"The products, at the moment, are new and there should perhaps be support for the older version of the protocols."
"It is difficult to maintain."
"The product's stability is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"I am not satisfied with the solution because it takes too much effort to migrate and add new information. The migration could be easier."
"The solution's release management feature could be better."
"webMethods.io Integration's installation is complex. It should also improve integration and connectors."
Layer7 API Management is ranked 10th in API Management with 108 reviews while webMethods.io Integration is ranked 28th in API Management with 7 reviews. Layer7 API Management is rated 8.4, while webMethods.io Integration is rated 7.8. 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 webMethods.io Integration writes "Though the tool provides great connectivity functionality, it needs to be made more stable". Layer7 API Management is most compared with Apigee, Kong Enterprise, Amazon API Gateway, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager and Akana API Management, whereas webMethods.io Integration is most compared with webMethods Integration Server, SAP Cloud Platform, Apigee, Microsoft Azure API Management and webMethods CloudStreams. See our Layer7 API Management vs. webMethods.io Integration 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.