IBM API Connect Reviews

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.

Our use case for this solution, depending on the API Connect centralized team, is for registering any APIs. Once those are there, the main idea is that they have to be reusable and available like a global platform rather than just internal to your applications. API Connect does that, you register your API and it is available. Anybody who wants to use that function or that API can now go through API Connect with the current credentials and get access to your API. I'm a lead architect and we are customers of IBM API Connect. 

This product has provided us with a structured way for anybody who wants to develop any API. It has reduced the amount of time spent on engagement and involvement of the team. They should put it on the cloud and in a mode where anybody can take something like a post run or something and test an API. In that way it saves having to really engage with the source or engage teams. If I want a solution, I can just call API Connect, see that API, test it out myself, and see how it works. Just like an email, there is an API that you can use that can send an email to anybody. I then check how it works and can integrate it with my application. I really don't have to create a work order and go to the team and start engaging them. If it's there you can just started using it. 

Reusability is the biggest most valuable feature for us. The security is also a major feature in some ways because if it's in API Connect, the gateway, you're in and out, it's well organized, rather than having some internal solution where somebody has to manage the in and out. In API Connect, the certificates and all those things are managed pretty well. From a security perspective, it makes things easier. 

From an API perspective, it is pretty strong. Again, it all depends on how other teams are implementing like certificates. If you register you eventually have to request certificates which API registers, so it is secure. From that perspective, I think API Connect has a pretty decent product.

Improvements depend on your perspective and what you need the API to do. I think it has room for improvement because, for example, there's nothing to show that other teams might be dumping the same thing and you have no way of knowing if it's redundant. I feel that sometimes different versions of the same thing are put in there. Although there may be slight differences like including some extra fields, at the end of the day, you're almost dumping the same API again into API Connect. At some point the product should be able to tell you that there is already a similar API there and whether you're dumping an API that's almost identical to what is there.

I've been using this solution for three years. 

This solution is stable. 

This solution is scalable.

The technical support is very good. 

The initial setup is a bit complex regarding what you want to put into API Connect because you're giving to a centralized team that has no idea what API to take and use it for. The centralized team is just a team that has no idea what to collect from these hundred teams. You need to have an idea of what you're taking from them and what they're being used for. That's a bit of a challenge. Again, from a new development perspective, it brings a structural way of development of the future API.

I would definitely recommend trying this product. From a cloud perspective it's there, and from a management of API perspective, all that authentication authorization is quite strong. It's a complete product that you can implement and get a centralized repo of the APIs that you can use enterprise wide. If any other enterprise project comes up, it's worth checking what exists rather than automatically developing from scratch. 

The solution is very easy to use. It's not really complicated, at least for those who are already familiar with some IBM products. We didn't have a problem getting it up and running. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

This solution enabled our business to get our solutions quite fast. Instead of waiting for weeks, or even months in some cases, it actually helped the movement from a bimodal to a faster depth of solution in a matter of the rate at which the organization could change. It was not a technological hindrance, it was more a change management aspect of the people that kept the movement back. But, we proved that the technology can keep up, it's the people that have to change faster. The fact that the product can provide both security and scale to quite a large number of products, is basically the reason why we chose it, and that's what we like about it.

The most valuable feature is the security we get from this solution. I know of a bank that uses it to ensure that everything is secure. The second feature I like is the retail environment, where we actually want to be able to provide as many suppliers and consumers with APIs as possible. If you are well-trained in the writing of RESTful API's, you can actually publish an API in a matter of minutes, test it, and publish it.

It is still a very new product. We're still finding our feet on the latest version of it because it gives you the capability to move into the cloud. We have not yet taken that leap into cloud because of the uncertainty of what the moving parts are, and that's why we'll have to wait and see. I would like to see more stability, however, and I do believe the newer version will offer that.

The new version is very unstable. There are a lot of fix patches and a host of known errors. They've started it on their website. So we're waiting for some of that to stabilize before we continue, but we're working around that as far as possible. The old version 5 was quite stable. We were able to put a lot of business commercial APIs in place. It is actually being monetized, and the guys are making money out of that. 

This is a robust system that is easily scalable. When it comes to the amount of users, it all depends on how you tackle the implementation, because in the first case, we basically had people that's running the infrastructure, setting the infrastructure up, and there you need a number of roles to set up the ecosystem itself. Then you must have the API providers. That could be including some business people as well as some testing people. And then obviously the running of it is basically minimal. With the new approach, we have very few people that can actually do the job. You have to, on a case-by-case, request time from people to do some work for you. There's no dedicated staff. The whole business approach and the whole implementation approach varies from organization to organization.

We plan to increase usage because if you want to make a business digital, that is one of the routes to go. Obviously, if you want to get mobility included in your portfolio of services, you have to go that route.

We've had no hassles with IBM when it comes to technical support. Whenever I log a PMR, they respond. In one instance they actually drove a guy in from their site to come and do a site visit. In another case they flew a guy in from Germany. They know that they have us as a customer and that's why they provide us with good support.

It is not too difficult to work on the solution itself, but to get it to fit within the organization, is something else. There is a vast difference between business models, between a banking setup and a retail setup. One must, first of all, get the business-aligned, because today business plays a bigger role than in the past. With APIs, it's inside-out thinking, meaning that business owners of the data will have to decide how they're going to do it, which is a change in some organizations where IT normally drives the technology. Now, all of a sudden, you have to tell the business, "You have to make decisions which IT will enable".

We used a team of people to implement the solution, and the first time we installed it, we had to pivot twice. All in all, it took us six months, and we had a dedicated team of about 15 people to do it. Once we'd pivoted twice and experimented with it, it took us approximately five months to get it up and going. The latest product, the new iteration, is run through a project, which doesn't have dedicated staff, and it has been ongoing for almost 13 months now. We're not yet done with pivot one.

We used IBM directly because we bought the product from them. We basically got them onsite to explain what their blueprint meant. The documentation was quite good, so all we had to do is get them to come and agree with the pattern we've selected. Now we're still finding our feet, experimenting and making up our minds.

We do see an ROI, because, in the past, we could not monetize services. Now we can sell our data. 

The basic appraisal based on the two models is available on their website. The one is PVU-based and the other one is consumption-based. But that is a ballpark figure. Obviously, when you engage with them in a contract, they can negotiate. 

We did evaluate a lot of other options. We were led by Gartner and Forrester with regards to that, and then we did site visits to other companies that implemented products, and we had a look at their solution. We spoke to some of their staff. Based on that, we did the due diligence, and then we selected the product. This solution came out on top.

The product itself delivers on what is documented and we don't need any additional features. Currently, there are some features that are not working because of known errors. I would like to see an improvement in the stability, however. Once we've got it stable, we can push the limits. We can see what works and what doesn't work, and then we can comment on what is required for the future. I will, therefore, rate this a seven out of ten.

I primarily use API Connect as a front end for any station, through which you can expose services to external or internal customers.

API Connect's best features are its data gateway, one of the strongest in the market, and its API manager, which has the local assembly transformation UI, which helps transform services from Maximal to JSON or vice versa.

API Connect's analytics subsystem could be improved to make it easier to render content from the analytics system and offload it to an external database.

I've been using API Connect for over eight years.

There are some issues with API Connect's stability, with parts going down abruptly sometimes. Its stability doesn't compare well to Epigee or Kong API, and I would only rate it seven out of ten.

API Connect is easy to scale, I would rate it nine out of ten.

IBM's technical support is terrible - they're incompetent and slow to respond, even sometimes not responding at all until they have every bit of information.

Negative

I previously used Epigee, Kong API, and 3scale.

The initial setup was a bit tricky and required a lot of installation and system administration skills. I would rate the setup two out of ten. The deployment took around two minutes and could be automated.

API Connect is expensive - I'd rate their pricing five out of ten.

I wouldn't recommend choosing API Connect unless you have a big budget and need an enterprise solution. I would give API Connect a rating of seven out of ten.