IBM API Connect Reviews

My clients mainly use API Connect as an API gateway. A lot of the backend services need to be exposed to other parties, mobile devices, interfaces, etc. 

API Connect's most valuable feature is its ability to act as a gateway. It's very easy to configure security and everything else in it. You don't have to kill yourself implementing custom configurations. Sometimes the customer wants to incorporate their identity provider, and API Connect handles that without any problems. 

One thing about API Connect that could be improved is the security schemes. There are so many security schemes, and from a product perspective, IBM could improve the user experience of the configuration security scheme. It does what it is supposed to do, but it could be easier to configure. The junior developers sometimes find it a bit confusing to configure even though they understand the concept.

And another thing is that I don't know the security policies that we have. For instance, we have a service account, which is needed to connect to some other services. So in those cases, I find it a bit hard to tweak things in the API gateway. And one could argue that it is not the right thing to do with the API gateway. It has a different place to be, which could be why they haven't put it there. But sometimes, you have to tweak around that, and I find it a little bit hard to do that. So if they could accommodate that in there, it would be better for some people.

I've been using it for the last four years on and off. The last time I deployed it was a few months ago.

API Connect is reliable.

API Connect is scalable, but I've found that everything is more stable if you reset the server every 40 or 45 days. Once, we had an incident in which we were unsure about what happened, but it crashed after 60 days. We didn't know the reason. It could've been a mistake in the product implementation. We don't know what happened, but this particular incident occurred two times. After that, we began restarting it every 45 days. So that's the resilience part, but the scalability part works without a problem.
Another thing is that we don't know all of the use cases that we have worked on before, so we didn't go for automatic scaling of the API gateway. That's done in the backend services. So I'll be honest to say that we haven't explored the auto-scalability of API Connect much. Instead, we put that on full throttle. This can cause a bottleneck if we play around with it, so we didn't take many risks. We put that on full throttle and did the tweaking in the backend services. That's how we did it in the past.

I've interacted with IBM support many times. They're good. They get back to you within 12 or 14 hours after you initiate a ticket. IBM support will get on a call with you if needed and guide you. It's no problem. They provide the same level of support to everyone. 

Setting up API Connect is a straightforward process. Maybe it seems more manageable because I've been taking baby steps rolling it out for the last few years. So when we talk about the latest version, it's not a headache if you follow the documentation. Even for an operations person, it's a piece of cake. 

It takes a minimal amount of time to deploy as a product. Including the processes for the organization, installing the product could take half a day. And when we ask the Ops team to do it, it usually takes half a day for them to do it. They have to document the IP and keep a log of what they're doing. 

API Connect itself does not require any maintenance. But when our teams write the business logic into it, that usually requires some support and maintenance. So a team of two people looks after the whole setup. And they work in shifts. Usually, it works on an onshore-offshore model. So one person from the onshore team will be supporting it for some time, and when he goes off, the other person comes up. 

API Connect's license cost could be a little lower. But, unfortunately, there aren't many open-source API gateways. Ideally, some new developers could come up with a minimum-functionality open-source solution. When I look for open-source resources that work with API C or Apigee, I find very few that can do that. It's not available or very popular in the open-source community. I've only worked with large companies that are capable of affording these licenses.  A better option for smaller companies might be to have two or three developers build a custom API gateway. That might be more affordable for them.

I rate API Connect seven out of 10. I would recommend it to customers if they have the money to pay for it, but it depends on the ecosystem. So, as a consultant, I would recommend API Connect if the customer already has an IBM license. Big companies generally have IBM middleware running somewhere, so they might have a license for these things. In cases like this, we would usually recommend API Connect for their purposes rather than spending more money on a different product. And if a client is building something entirely new and has to get a new license, we'll compare the options, including Apigee, MuleSoft, API C, or a custom solution. 

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.

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.

It is the go-to solution for API repository products. We use it for runtime by designing certain products, and those products are subscribed to by various consuming systems.

It has made API monetization quite easy. I can simply log onto the API dashboard and see who has used how much and whether they are using their quota or not. If they go beyond their quota, I can then give them a higher rate. Thus, it has helped us with API monetization.

We really like the runtime capabilities of IBM API Connect. The creation of products and the control of the monetization and hit rate are some of the features which we've found very valuable.

There are certain areas that need improvement. The first one is the design time setup. It has a lot of customizable fields, but we need certain standard fields to be added, such as what all of the consuming systems are. This needs to be very clearly articulated during the design time.

The second, which was a very big issue for me for adoption, is that they don't give any out-of-the-box solutions for knowing how many users have logged on during the design time and who has access to the portal for how much time. There is no capability right now to tell me the usage details and user rights.

As for additional features, design time user analytics would be great to have in the next release.

I've been using this solution for one and a half years.

It's quite stable.

Right now, we are using the design time thoroughly, but we are in the nascent stage for the runtime. So we just have a couple of systems using it, but going forward, we have plans for extensive adoption of the runtime capabilities.

We were previously using WSRR, and we switched because IBM stopped providing any updates to that product. Also, it was primarily design time only; there was no runtime capability.

The initial setup was a little bit complex because we wanted to put it in a proper Kubernetes cluster. So we had to learn Kubernetes and then do it.

It took us a month to deploy the solution.

We used IBM directly for implementation. We've been using IBM services for the past 13 years, and we are okay with their level of expertise.

I would urge others to use both design time and runtime and not just use it as a repository. I would suggest that they utilize the runtime features, which are pretty strong. First, they can secure your API ecosystem.

Second, they have very good monetizing capabilities, which allow you to design products and see who accesses those products. Usage-based and storage-based restriction capabilities are present, which are probably some of the best on the market today. So, I would really urge people to just go beyond the design time and also utilize API Connect in runtime as well.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate  IBM API Connect at seven because it is a little bit weak on design time.

We primarily use the solution for a bank. It's used for the operations portion of the bank. It's primarily used for the review of the personnel in your accounts et cetera. It's for many operations for the bank.

The interface is very nice. It makes the solution easy to use and navigate.

You can install it in coordinates, in general, and you can deploy it in Amazon, in Google, in the IBM cloud, or other clouds as well. You don't have to worry about having to work on a specific cloud. It makes it very flexible. This is very important.

The product is quite robust. 

The initial setup is very easy and the deployment is very quick. 

The documentation needs to be a bit better. It's very sequential, however, I don't understand what options to choose for certain tasks. I need to read all of the documentation to find what I need. It's easier to look at recommendations or to watch Youtube videos that show specific examples. 

There needs to be more in the toolkit to complement the product. We could have more features, for example, for queries to the platform. 

I've been using the solution for three years or so. It's been a while. 

The stability has been fine. We've found it to be very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash and freeze. In the past versions, stability was a bit of an issue, however, in the latest version, we have found it to be much better and much more reliable. We are satisfied with it so far. 

The scalability has been good. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

We have an average of 1,000 people using the platform normally. On top of that, there are 10 developers that are also on it at any given time. 

Technical support could be better. They are so-so. They could be more supportive and be better at answering questions. We'd like it if they made issues easier to resolve.

There's also a general lack of documentation, which sometimes means finding answers on your own is difficult to do. 

The initial setup is not overly difficult or complex. It's very simple and straightforward. 

The deployment is quite quick. It only takes about one hour to have everything up and running. 

I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations due to the fact that it is very, very easy to use. The product is good, however, that said, they need to pay more attention to their documentation and support. 

Overall, I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We have largely been satisfied with the solution and its capabilities.

We are IBM partners.

The solution is primarily used as the API gateway. It's for the application that performs the function as the API for the consumer.

The customer seems to really like how this particular solution works.

The solution is very stable.

The functionalities on offer are very good.

The solution would be better if it had cloud functionalities.

It would be very helpful if it supported Azure and/or AWS marketplaces. Right now, if I want to set up something in Azure, I need to set up a VM from scratch instead of just being able to have it be supported and integrated.

I've only really been assisting my customer, who uses this solution. However, it's my understanding that they have been using the product for a long time.

The stability has been very good. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs. From a performance perspective, it's reliable.

The customer has many, many users on the solution currently. I can't speak to exact numbers. I know there are a lot.

I've never dealt with IBM's technical support. I'm unsure if the client even has a contract that allows them access to IBM's support. If they do, I would definitely reach out to discuss the product and its capabilities more. I'm not sure if a technical support license is extra or just comes with the license itself or if it expires over time, et cetera. I haven't looked into it at all.

I've never handled an installation before. I wouldn't be able to speak from personal experience. I can't get into details about implementation or deployment or how long the process takes.

I proposed to the client that they use the cloud-native API gateway in Azure or in AWS, however, they wanted to go for the API Connect.

I'm considering migrating API Connect to Azure.

I'm still doing the assessment for this product. That is due to the fact that the move to the cloud is just not only for this product. We have a lot of products in terms of the customer's applications. I need to assess everything together and then propose to my end customer.

I'm a vendor. I do assessments for my customer.

I wouldn't recommend this solution to other organizations at this time. It's on-premises and everyone is moving to the cloud. It makes more sense to seek out a cloud solution.

Overall, I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We use this solution for external API spotters and API.

It helped us mainly with the corporation, ownerships with other partners.  

It makes it possible to create close companies with processes to develop mutually, and digital solutions. 

This is our main benefit.

The suite itself is what I find valuable. It has all of the tools that are needed for the specific mission. I have the portal, I have the run time and the security.

The solution itself is valuable.

The automation and the simplicity could be improved.

They could also have more frequent additions.

I would like to see the simplicity improved to make it very easy to deploy and to make it very easy for the regular developer, not an API special developer.

I would like the developers to be able to develop APIs and to make them more accessible.

I would also like to have a DevOps built-in process that is very fast and easy.

The monitoring suite should be ready-made and not have to tailor-make my home.

I have been working with IBM API Connect for three years.

It's a very stable solution.

Our work is very basic. We have not dealt with scaling.

It's IBM, and they take time. I am from Isreal and the support is always from abroad. It's a heaving process.

At times when we have issues and have decided not to turn to support since we know it will take time, and the effort is not as understandable, but we will have a solution at the end of it.

Technical support is an area that needs improvement.

The installation is pretty complex. 

We must also take into consideration that I am referring to the on-premises installation, which by definition is much harder, and relatively speaking it is a bit complex.

It is quite an expensive product.

I would rate IBM API Connect a seven out of ten.

We are using this solution to handle our open API Connection.

Our company mainly has cooperation with institutions, and we are hoping that with this product, in the future we can create easy connections to other institutions who also implement open API.

The most valuable features are stability and security.

The developmental process is not quite user-friendly.

IBM should improve the customization of the API Connect.

The price could be reduced, it's expensive.

I have been using IBM API Connect since August. It is not in production, we are still in the developmental stages.

We have just finished the procurement process.

IBM API Connect is a stable solution.

It's a scalable solution.

The number of users is not relevant. It is based on the number of transactions, not users.

We plan to continue using this product in the future.

IBM technical support is good.

Previously, we didn't use another solution. This is the first API management product that we have used. 

The initial setup is straightforward, and the installation is easy.

We have a team of ten technicians to deploy and maintain this solution.

It's an expensive product.

I would rate IBM API Connect an eight out of ten.