IBM API Connect Reviews

We are using IBM API Connect to integrate bank applications. We are linking frontend services with the backend to prevent unwanted penetration.

I have found IBM API Connect to be highly secure, efficient, easy to deploy, and has a great GUI. It can operate and integrate well with other vendors, such as Amazon, Google, and Microsoft.

I have been using IBM API Connect for approximately two years.

The solution has a modern cloud and it has been stable and reliable. We have not had any breaches of security.

The solution is highly scalable, you can scale up and down. It has good performance, and you are able to customize the APIs to what you want.

The support we have received from IBM has been great, they have been very responsive.

I have previously used Oracle API gateway. When comparing the two, they are both very reliable and have good APIs but IBM on-premise installation is more flexible.

The installation was difficult with the IBM toolkit.

We have an architectural roadmap to follow while doing the implementation of the solution and it took approximately three months for our teams to complete. I had some support from IBM during the process.

The price of the solution is very expensive, it can turn many customers away.

The solution is very good and might not be suited for everyone's use case. Organizations might not need such a robust solution that is priced as high as it is. The demographics can play a role in if this solution is suitable, it depends on what others are using to make it competitive. For example, in Africa, the use of this solution is very low, they are not thinking too much about security. However, if your organization wants to take its operations to the next level then this solution might be the right choice.

I rate IBM API Connect an eight out of ten.

Right now, our use cases are all internal. It's all API socialization internally. With version 10, we'd like to go externally with an actual API marketplace, however, we haven't gone there yet. 

I don't publish; I manage infrastructure. My role is to implement the infrastructure, maintain it, and enable the developers to leverage the technology.

The older versions of the solution were fairly straightforward to install.

The solution offers a pretty good SLA.

We deal a lot with technical support and typically they do help. We need them as we often can't find the documentation that would help us circumvent their services.

We've had some issues upgrading to the latest version of the solution.

The documentation could be improved. When we download a fix that was expected to be seamless to install, it wasn't. In the past, it was easy just to go to any product and download the documentation. If you had the license, you download the product, install it, look at the documentation. Only for specific cases would you have to reach out to support. Now it is like we know that, for these products, we're going to have to call or engage at some point with support. It's painful right now. It's not a smooth installation.

A hybrid cloud enablement would be very useful. We tried to stand up a gateway in IKS and we were told by support that that was not possible. Yet, the technical people, the designers of the solution, started saying, no, you can actually do it. However, they never said is supported, so I was never sure where the solution stands on hybrid clouds. 

The answers that sometimes are provided are not very comforting. If it isn't a full commitment it isn't going to work.

They need to make it a product that can be downloadable and installable and workable without having to engage with them directly.

I've been using the solution extensively for at least the last 12 months. We've been working with it since at least 2017. It's been a few years at this point.

Since we're mostly talking about Version 5, which is a very old version, I would have to say that it is not scalable. The memory gets too high and it affects operations. We had to request another server and it cost us money, even when we were doing a migration. Even if we wanted to go to Version 10 we have to still apply what is called a Fix Pack to the old version to have a separate infrastructure.

We have about 100 developers that use the solution currently.

We have to go through the levels of support. We open a ticket and then we try to engage. I have contacts that I can go directly to. However, if the documentation was better, we would need to interact with them less.

We are currently looking to change over to another vendor.

I actually did the initial setup for Version 5.0 which took a long time to install. It was easier, I think, as we're moving to newer versions. It is due to the fact that we've included Kubernetes and this style of installation that we're doing today which is a little bit more complex. 

The original was not nearly as complex as it is today. 

We're having some issues. If I go from Version 5.0 and I want to upgrade to 2018, I have to request new servers and then migrate all of the APIs. This is the same for Version 10 which wasn't a commitment, however, there was a communication that they would have an upgrade in place by the end of the second quarter and it didn't happen. We spent all 2018 to 2020 installing Version 2018. Now, we're told if we want to go to Version 10, we have to set up new infrastructure.

We tried to do the 2018 installation in three or four weeks and we handled it all in-house.

I cannot speak to an ROI.

We have an SLA we can draw from. I need to keep within certain numbers, however, I don't have a problem doing so. I can't speak to exact costs.

I haven't had a chance to compare the solution to other products yet, however, the plan is to move away from this product. We still need to do the research.

We are a direct customer and end-user. We aren't a partner of IBM.

We're not using the latest version of the solution right now. We have in production the original version - which I believe is Version 5.0. It was the original version. We worked all those years since 2018 and we're having some challenges to go to Version 10 which is the latest version.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

The API manager of the enterprise exposes common functionalities to the front-end applications, beginning with the frontend of the executives who access clients' information.  The exposition of the functionalities of transferring funds and AFP which need to transfer the money from your account to a client's AFP.  The exposition of the core functionalities to the module of the sale of a product installed on the cloud of AWS, to create an onboarding platform for the client's prospect of the enterprise.

The product has a little use at the enterprise because the APIs have functionality with low use. The next steps are to enforce and grow the use of APIs through the creation of a governance department that aligns the construction's standards and defines the classifications of APIs. 

This is the main goal, to finally integrate the applications that will deploy on the cloud consuming the backends on-premise through IBM API Connect. Having the centralized management of APIs.

The most valuable features are:

1. The centralized management: this provides a management module that can deploy and apply security policies to all APIs, including all the gateways that are deployed on-premises and on any cloud because the gateway component can run at a VMware or in a Kubernetes cluster.

2. The analytics module: this provides a variety of visualizations of the APIs, products, subscriptions, and applications that can be defined for a second, a day, a week, a month. This module is deployed beside the gateway and collect all the traffic.

The product can be improved in the following  areas:

1.  The monetization because it doesn't include an online method to pay through a web system or with a credit card, where the analytics can be calculated.

2.  The integration of an API gateway that implements the sidecar pattern, which can be deployed in cloud applications, and expose the microservices directly in each pod, this  can be more decentralized components.

All of these areas can be improved. 

We have been using IBM API Connect for six months.

It's very stable.

The solution offers horizontal scalability. The power of the product is the high performance in security tasks done with dedicated hardware.

We implemented it with the official vendor of the product.

Another team selected the product.

One valuable feature of IBM API Connect is its role differentiation between API publishers and consumers. Publishers can easily identify, create, and publish APIs on the developer portal, defining plans, packages, and potentially billing rules. Consumers, interested in specific API packages, can subscribe, and use the APIs, and the platform tracks usage meticulously, allowing accurate billing applications for API consumers based on their usage patterns.

The platform’s integration with the payment gateway needs enhancement. The setup process and support services could be improved.

We have been using IBM API Connect for three to five years.

It is a stable product. I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

It is a scalable product. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

We encounter challenges related to the availability of local support and time zones.

Neutral

We used another product for API management. However, there were several areas of improvement related to the availability of a knowledgeable and skilled support team.

The initial setup is complicated for container deployment. It is easy to maintain. I rate the process an eight out of ten.

We use the platform’s analytics feature for extracting reporting for billing purposes. It is a good feature. It offers a sandbox environment where users, such as developers or testers, can interact with and test various APIs.

In the subscription process, EVOFRO (Evaluate, Offer, Verify, Fulfill, Render, Operate) is involved, specifically during the consumer's subscription attempt. It triggers a flow that includes reviewing and approving the subscription. It helps us achieve 80% compliance with regulations for our company.

I advise customers to identify the use cases before purchasing the product. I rate it an eight out of ten.

We use this solution in a hybrid way. All the processes and data is in the cloud but the API gateway is part of the API Connect solution and runs on prem in Argentina, connected to the cloud.

The management of the API and API portal is good. 

The monetization of the API could be improved. The pricing for the consumer is also very important to improve this solution. Nowadays, we are sending information to other tool in order to process out of API Connect. They could improve this internal service in order to have the balance for the consumer's API for different companies, external to our company.

I have been using this solution for three years. 

This is a strong and stable solution. 

The initial setup is complex. When setting it up, you will need support. We are using AVP support from IBM. Its an extra support service. I would recommend using this kind of support because it will help your company move quickly in order to set up the different products. IBM AVP stands for accelerated value program.

I would rate this solution a nine out ten. 

We provide social security services (nonprofit) to our tenants and their customers.

Our goal with an API gateway is to separate our own clients in our extranet from the server implementations. We want to provide a unique point-of-contact for the client application(s) while having several server components at the backend side.

Furthermore, we need a single-sign-on solution and mapping of services.

Everything needs to run an OpenShift 4.x private cloud with no (or very restricted) access to the internet.

Unfortunately, this solution resulted (at least for us) in more problems than expected. We had severe installation and upgrade issues (maybe due to the nature of our network which is closed to the outside). One of those upgrades took, including problem solving, three people three weeks. Luckily, this was not in production, but if it would have been, we would be lost. This is the main reason for choosing another solution.

Also within the specific version, a map operator was missing (which was needed) - so we would need to write mappings on our own in JavaScript.

When API Connect is running, it is a stable solution (just do not change it).

Also, managing products and catalogs was helpful and it would be helpful for (as in our case) companies that need to run a multi-tenant concept. 

The developer portal is based on Drupal which is in itself very powerful. The service provider view and the consumer view are totally separated (however - the look and feel are also different).

From a starter perspective, using OpenShift, the operators to install are all there.

The statistics component is easy to use. You get your information at your fingertip.

Installation is weak. We (three people) ran into so many problems that I would, as an engineering manager, give this back to the development team. 

Too many secrets (even if they are set by default, we had problems).

The big footprint of pods, a complex network of them. This should be simplified.

To me, the product looks over-engineered. On the other hand, documentation needs more examples, this is "under-engineered".

They need to provide debugging facility for service implementations and policies (see gravitee.io for an example)

I've used the solution for one year.

Although we had our problems, I would say it is very scalable. 

Technical support is too slow.

Neutral

We did not previously use something else.

We took on API Connect although it was not Number One on our shortlist as we had a large contract with IBM which includes also this product.

The initial setup was too complex (we had problems).

We worked with a certified external consultant company.

Be sure you do not run into installation or upgrade issues. 

Our problems here were caused by our closed environments, however, still, it is in the dark of the systems where the problems are.

We also looked at:

• MuleSoft
• Kong
• Gravitee
• KrankenD
• WSO2

People should also consider support. We had several times to contact the support, and quite often we got a response after some days of the kind "please send this or that additional information". This does not help to solve quickly.

We used API Connect for OPIE management. About 50 developers in my company are using it. 

API Connect is a good product, and everything works fine. All the analytics are good, and it is easy to follow up. I like it in that sense. I'm more focused on following up on analytics by seeing how many API calls we are getting and where we see a lot of problems. I was working on that API level.

We used API Connect for at least three years.

API Connect's stability was okay. We ran it on top of the Kubernetes cluster, so it wasn't a standalone service. In the worst-case scenario, API Connect couldn't stay online if all the containers went down. We had to restart all the services. We shut down all the containers automatically one by one. That was the only problem. It didn't happen often— maybe three or four times in two years — but it was still somewhat problematic. API Connect is not fully cloud-native in that sense.

We outsource maintenance to a local company in Finland. They built it for us and maintain it.

API Connect was highly expensive for us, but the decision to switch was made before I joined the company. It seems like the company bought it, but they didn't know how to use it. After two years, they decided to reevaluate and conduct some cost estimates. 

I rate API Connect eight out of 10. If you are using a microservice like Kubernetes, that should be tested to ensure it's working. If you are running API Connect on top of Kubernetes, you trust that you can update the Kubernetes cluster on the fly during the daytime.

In our case, every time we had to update the Kubernetes cluster that API Connect was running on, it was so much work. We could update all the other clusters with no problem. So my advice is to make sure that it is working. Otherwise, I think everything was okay. 

We are using it for some applications that are useful for banking.

It is easy to use and stable.

It should be cheaper.

I have been using this solution for a couple of months.

It is stable.

It is scalable. We have around 1,000 users. We have a technical team of 10 to 20 people. They include managers and developers.

It is easy to install. It takes one or two days for deployment.

It should be cheaper. It has a yearly licensing.

I would rate IBM API Connect a nine out of 10.