IBM App Connect Reviews

Currently, we are using the product as our central middleware. We are using it to eliminate all point connections and expose data centralized service hub for consumers.

It has optimized the service consumption of the consumers and improved the performance since it has a limited point-to-point connection between systems.

The most valuable feature is the user-friendliness of the application. It doesn't require deep technical expertise to consume the features.

The product should improve its support. Unlike other products like Microsoft, IBM does not have a community. The solution needs to work on community building.

The product serves its purpose and our future requirements. However, the product can provide additional connectors and database tables without impacting performance.

We have been using this solution since 2020. So, it's almost three and a half years.

It would rate the stability a ten out of ten. Once we configure the tool, it works by automation.

The solution is very scalable. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. Around 10 to 15 people use the product in our organization. We use the product daily. The number of users depends on the volume of the services. When the business grows, the consumption volume will also grow.

I rate the ease of initial setup an eight out of ten. The initial setup is complex if you are not familiar with it. Still, it is straightforward if you study the product and have proper training and knowledge of the development and features.

We use an IBM-authorized partner to do the implementation. It took us around one month to deploy the solution. We don't need more than two people for deployment. It's a long and technical process that the supporting vendors do.

I'm not a technical person who works on the ground level. So I do not have the knowledge to explain the deployment process. We have an agreement with the support partner. They handle the maintenance.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I primarily use App Connect for ETL and managing files in batch operations.

App Connect's best feature is that it can be deployed in a container.

The setup time for App Connect could be improved.

I've been using App Connect for ten years and the latest version for about a year.

App Connect is stable.

I would rate App Connect's scalability eight out of ten.

We get good technical support from the local IBM, though there's less support for older versions.

The initial setup is fairly straightforward so long as you have experience with the product and know about containers, but it takes a long time to complete.

Initially, App Connect was quite expensive because the cost was based on the number of processors we used. However, it's now based on containers, which means we can be more specific about our consumption and get a better price.

I would give App Connect a rating of eight out of ten.

App Connect works as a middleware tool. It connects the front and the back ends. I've used it for creating a service for generating net banking OTPs. We are partners with IBM and I'm a senior software engineer.

This latest version is very scalable, flexible and user-friendly. Another advantage of this version is that there's no dependency on the queue manager. I've seen this solution change over many years, and it's now compatible with many different kinds of software, different depositories, and many different testing tools. It's great in that it can be embedded with other kinds of technologies.

Plugins for the repositories are a little difficult to find. It requires some information in the toolkit and if there were some links, options, or search buttons that would simplify things. I would like to have some predefined plugins built-in to App Connect with a list to choose from because some people use SVN, some use GitHub, and others use Bitbucket.

The solution has a DFU mode which IBM states can easily be seen in the variables. It's not that easy to see and is lacking definition. When you're testing the code, you test it with the tool, but you also test the flow that you've created in the tool kit and see the values and what has been created in between the flows. I would want to see it presented in a more defined manner so that it's easy to view while you are debugging. I'd like to have more visibility when testing and debugging the code.

I've been using this tool for almost eight years. 

The product is quite stable. If there are any issues, they're generally resolved very quickly. We had issues using some shared or static library. If you changed a particular element, it had to be redeployed.

The cloud option is much more scalable because it's easier to make changes and remove some code. 

I don't work directly with tech support but I know they are very quick in dealing with fixes. Some can be dealt with on the spot but if it requires rolling out a fix, they create a ticket and are very responsive. 

The initial setup is relatively straightforward. You get an installer, and click on it and it asks where to create the workspace. That's all it takes. 

I rate this product eight out of 10. 

We use the solution to integrate IR adaptors in SAP systems and Microsoft Graph APIs in SharePoint systems. We also use it for SFTP, STP, HTTP and REST endpoint files. 

The solution is fast and supports Open UI 3.0 certification. 

The addition of string functionality would be a benefit, particularly in the ESQL space that IBM already uses internally. If you have non-unique elements but need unique elements, you must write code. 

For example, Java provides one function for obtaining unique values. 

I have been using the solution for two years. 

The solution's stability is good. The product is new so we pick up issues and raise them with IBM. We raised two PMRs and received a fixed pack for one of them within a few months.  

The solution is easy to scale. We have many purchasers and more than 10,000 transaction requests route from ACE to the solution with no performance issues. 

Critical issues are resolved quickly by technical support, but there is a delay in response to items related to the product, deployment, or low production environments.  

My colleagues and I have discussed that PMRs will take some time to resolve because the product is newer and only launched a few years ago. 

If a customer reports an issue, support should at least acknowledge it quickly. 

Neutral

The initial setup was straightforward with no issues. 

Our DevOps team implemented the solution in-house and deployed it easily. We have multiple jobs in our environment so it takes less than a minute to deploy applications. 

The solution is a good product in the integration space and a leader in the market. It allows integration with any applications and any code systems. Anyone in need of an integration tool should consider this product. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We use IBM App Connect for business use cases involving data transformations. It can perform tasks such as converting XML to JSON, XML to CSV, or vice versa. Additionally, it can handle API conversions with mapping and transformation rules, simplifying the development process. It offers security features for APIs. It includes support for TLS (Transport Layer Security) and encryption mechanisms.

IBM App Connect should improve security features and have a faster mechanism than MuleSoft, which has better capabilities.

We have been using IBM App Connect for eight years.

The product's stability is good. However, we encounter issues with complex services. I rate its stability a seven out of ten.

It is a scalable platform. I rate its scalability an eight and a half out of ten.

The technical support services need improvement in terms of response time.

Neutral

I have used MuleSoft before. Both products have similar capabilities. Large enterprises use App Connect more, while MuleSoft is more suitable for medium or small enterprises.

The product's deployment for on-premise servers is easy. At the same time, it is tedious to deploy on clusters. We use the DevOps pipeline for on-cloud deployments. It takes a few seconds to complete the process.

I rate IBM App Connect an eight out of ten. I recommend others for the product if you need to build highly scalable and secured services. In the case of services for enterprises with a high volume of APIs, I advise them to use the enterprise version of the product.

App Connect is useful for monitoring APAC and API. It allows us to do analysis based on the dashboards, and it's mostly used for security.

We have almost 10 million transactions per day.

It's a cloud solution.

The most valuable feature is the security. The agreement relies on DataPower, so if you're calling APIs to publish to the internet, you definitely need the security.

In the next release, I would like to get some quality connectors. With the configuration of MuleSoft, they have multiple connectors if you're going with the quicker stuff. There's IBM Professional and IBM Enterprise solution. IBM Professional will have all the connector things, but I'm expecting that to be included on-premise as well.

IBM should be competitive on the third party cloud side of integration so that we can do the development quickly. It would also be very useful for the cost effectiveness of project development.

I've been using this solution for almost one year.

It's a stable solution.

It's scalable.

There is a laptop vulnerability, so we connected with IBM's tech support about that.

The amount of people needed for deployment and maintenance will depend on the project. For example, we are a financial team working as a GBS, Global Business Service. Based on the project, we have two developers and a DBA.

We always have ROI when we use IBM products. If you're using multiple products from IBM, you will see ROI. If not, you'll definitely see some variation.

The cost depends upon the consumer. Right now, the cost is within $10,000 per year, based on the transactions. The license depends on if you're a premium partner, platinum partner, or golden partner.

I would rate this solution nine out of ten.

I would definitely recommend this solution to those who are interested in using it. Banks around the world use IBM App Connect.

We use this solution to connect with MQ. We manage the solution and send the results.

It's stable to use, connect with the cloud, and to deploy.

The interface could be better.

It's stable.

It's scalable.

Technical support takes time to respond.

Neutral

Initial setup isn't easy. It's medium difficulty.

You need between two and five people for deployment.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

We strategically decided to move all companies' data change with third parties. We control the Enterprise Service Bus platform. We also decided to change over to advanced systems to centralized management since we have several applications. We wanted a single point from which we could exchange data.

The security is very good.

It offers excellent reliability.

There is a friendly interface for configuration, and integration is made easy.

It can scale.

The solution is stable and reliable. 

We have not used the solution for too long. I haven't noted any issues with the product so far. We're still discovering new features.

When we do a version upgrade of the system, the platform is kind of complicated. It would be ideal if it was easier to manage.

Sometimes we have issues with local support.

I've been using the solution for one year or so. 

I'd rate the stability nine out of ten. We've never had issues. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution is scalable. It's containerized. I'd rate the ability to scale eight or nine out of ten in terms of ease of expansion. 

We only have administrators directly dealing with the solution, as it's for systems, not people. Administrators work with it on a daily basis. 

We have not dealt with technical support as we haven't had any issues. 

We did previously use an open-source solution. We switched to ensure business continuity.

We were lucky in that we good advice from local companies, so it was pretty easy for us to implement the product. I would rate the ease of implementation to eight out of ten. Overall, it was a good experience for us.

We're still on-premises with the ability to go hybrid. 

The main deployment of the system or integration was straightforward. It was mainly implemented within two months, however, integration is a continuous process. With every new system or new function, we need to communicate that to the system. It's not possible to just lump everything together into one project. We're always renewing or installing or changing architecture. 

We did get some advice from a local company.

You need some time to realize an ROI. 

The pricing is moderate. I'd rate the solution five out of ten. The licensing model is not bad. It's flexible. In time, you can allocate your licensing according to your different needs. 

You need some competencies as the licensing can be a bit complex.  

We're customers and end-users. We're using the latest version of the solution. 

I'd advise others to look carefully at licensing. Since it is a bit complex, they need to make sure they have the right licensing in place. You need to understand what you need and expect so that it is helpful for your company.

Over, the solution is not bad. I'd rate the product eight out of ten. The product is okay. However, there are times when we struggle with local support.