We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure API Management and webMethods API Portal based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Google, Amazon Web Services (AWS) and others in API Management."I like the stability and the ease of use."
"It's very well integrated with the Azure environment."
"It seems quite good so far. It handles our current workload well, and I'm optimistic it can scale effectively as our needs grow."
"We're pretty much using all of the monetizations features out of the API manager so we can put up a portal and have a dev portal and then a prod portal and do rate limiting."
"The stability and performance are good. It is easy to install, and it scales well too."
"I have found this solution to be easy to configure, simple to use, and flexible."
"The solution has overall high performance."
"We use this solution for API rate limiting and for its security features against DDoS."
"We have found the pricing of the solution to be fair."
"webMethods API Portal is overall very valuable. It is now a comprehensive API catalogue that serves various purposes, including API assessment and evaluation."
"It is good for communicating between the systems and for publishing and subscribing. We can easily retrieve data. It is good in terms of troubleshooting and other things."
"The API gateway can be very complex."
"The integration with other API gateways is where they might try to improve."
"They're trying to implement versioning and trying to be able to manage different versions of your API all at the same time, but they're not doing that just quite right yet."
"The hybrid part could be improved because API Management is entirely cloud-based, but some of our resources are on-prem, so formatting is an issue. Our goal is dual implementation."
"Microsoft Azure API Management could improve the documentation. The documentation feels like marketing information and not sufficient technical information. Your easiest option is to purchase services from a Microsoft partner and this is their marketing."
"The scalability of this solution could be improved. The volume which the API Management task service can handle needs to be improved. Cost wise, this solution could be optimized."
"Price is the first thing that comes to mind. It's quite expensive, which could be a barrier for some users."
"In terms of improvement, it would be helpful if they could develop an on-premises option."
"The improvement needed is related to the model's position. As of now, it seems to be more of a conceptual idea rather than a widely implemented solution. For how long"
"The on-premises setup can be difficult."
"Some of the things that we use cannot be done in this solution. For these things, we have to either use a Java service or a util service. There is no predefined or existing service that we can use. So, we have to work on the util service and write on top of it. Its price can also be better. It is pretty costly because they charge us for each transmission."
More Microsoft Azure API Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure API Management is ranked 1st in API Management with 67 reviews while webMethods API Portal is ranked 23rd in API Management with 3 reviews. Microsoft Azure API Management is rated 7.8, while webMethods API Portal is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure API Management writes "Efficiently manages and monetizes API ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods API Portal writes "Stable, with good technical support, but the on-premises version can be difficult to set up". Microsoft Azure API Management is most compared with Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Kong Gateway Enterprise and IBM API Connect, whereas webMethods API Portal is most compared with IBM API Connect.
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.