IBM App Connect Reviews

We use App Connect for integration and creating APIs. 

The integration with HR systems could be better. 

I've been using IBM App Connect for three years.

App Connect is stable

App Connect is scalable 

I don't deal with IBM support, but the administrator of this operation had some issues. They reply in one or two hours at most, but they could be better. 

I rate IBM App Connect eight out of 10. It's a powerful application for collaboration. It has many features for customization and integration. 

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.

Our company is in Saudi Arabia. We provide end to end solutions to our customers. I'm chief solutions architect.

The solution provides a lot of good features, particularly when it comes to security. It also includes everything that's required of a VBI management solution and also as an ESB. The beauty of IBM App Connect is that it provides end-to-end middleware.

Updates are constantly delayed and that is something IBM could improve. 

I've been working with this solution for close to two years. 

App Connect is built on OpenShift which is included in the solution so if we need to scale it's much easier and is a strong feature of App Connect.

IBM has a good presence here and the remote support is good. Getting on-site support is more difficult but it's the same with all the products. 

The deployment itself is somehow complicated and not as easy as Apigee or even WSO2 which are very easy to deploy. We have another issue which is that there are not many developers or engineers working with App Connect here in Saudi Arabia. We require two or three engineers to deploy but it's not easy to find certified people. 

Licensing costs are expensive, we have a contract for three years. IBM provides good quality solutions and there's a price for that. We pay 200K every year. We haven't had any issues with our customers because they are all enterprise organizations so the cost is not an issue for them. Licensing fees include technical support. 

App Connect is similar to Apigee but is less complicated. Apigee is very good when it comes to VBI management, but it's not an ESB solution. 

Overall, I rate this solution eight out of 10.

This solution is used as the integration hub between the internal application of any enterprise.

The installation of containers could be simplified, as it currently requires a senior-level installer.

In the next release, I would like it to be integrated with lifecycle management.

I have been using IBM App Connect for 15 years.

We started working with version 2, but now we are using version 11, which is the newest version. 

It's a stable solution, we have not had any issues.

It's a scalable product. We have more than 20 users who are using this solution.

Technical support is good.

You can install both on the cloud and on-premises.

If you go with a container-based installation, it's more complex than a traditional installation.

We need only one person to deploy this solution.

The pricing could be better.

Licensing is on a yearly basis.

This is a cloud-based and Microsoft-based solution. It was called Message Broker previously.

We plan to continue implementing this product and I would recommend it to others.

I would rate IBM App Connect a ten out of ten.

We use it for the integration of applications in different scenarios.

• Comfortable integration
• Different type of interfaces that can integrate with companies.

It is very stable.

It takes two people to deploy and maintain the solution.

It is very expensive if we want to scale. Four nodes are using App Connect.

There are two people currently using the solution.

The technical support is very good.

We used IBM Integration Bus a very long time ago. We need the App Connect solution for its integration platform.

It is not easy to deploy. It requires someone with a high level of knowledge in the solution to deploy it, not just anyone can do it. 

It was very fast to deploy. It took one day.

Our implementation strategy was focused on CI/CD.

We did the deployment ourselves. We used an integration toolkit from IBM.

The solution is really good, but expensive.

We also looked at open source solutions.

We tried to start using other solutions in our projects, but found they were not simple to use. We are using App Connect because it's a more comprehensive solution that can handle many projects.

I would rate the solution as a nine (out of 10).

The most valuable feature for me is the availability of the adapters, which are already made out of the box. My customer then doesn't need to really spend a lot of time getting into production. You name it, SalesForce, or Ariba, whatever be the supporting products that we need to integrate to. It's just a matter of days to get it in production. That's the great part of it.

Whether it be a CRM, ERP or whatever you want to integrate with, customers get the integration projects done at least 40% ahead of time. That's a great benefit for them and for us.

There are a few adapters which our customers have been asking for. That's something that's very critical, but I think most critically our customers are asking for support. If I call within the next two hours, someone should be there at least on a call to support me. Support is the major thing.

The cloud version had me a little bit worried because we don't really know how stable it is or how it's scaling. There have been a few instances when customers have come with complaints but all around, they're still happy.

Scalability is fine. I mean, in the licensing it's not very clear but still, as a product, it scales.

Technical support has been good all around. If you look over a longer period of time, there have been certain cases where, for certain issues, we have gone back and we haven't received a response in a matter of days. That's not ideal because we are in production.

I was not involved in the initial setup.

Maybe start with a PoC. Do a proof of concept and only after that, maybe take the decision whether it meets your requirements.

With regard to my customers, when they are selecting a vendor, I guess what they're looking for is somebody who will support them. I'm looking for people who can go end-to-end. They can't just sell me the product, but they can also implement it and then they can be there whenever I need them. It's the complete sales cycle.

We originally purchased Cast Iron because of its connections to Salesforce.

Because it has a graphical developer interface, we can quickly develop solutions that are connecting to anything on the cloud, without having to build those connectors ourselves.

I'm happy to see that Swagger is introduced because we're going to combine it with IBM API Connect. I wish it could reach out to the network folders, because that's the one thing we haven't been able to do well with it and that is to get network file systems.

It's been stable. We haven't had any problems with its stability.

Because we have the Hypervisor Edition, we have run into scalability issues. Since it transforms everything in to XML, the payloads get pretty big and slow. We have to keep that in mind when we determine when to use it versus when to use something else for batch instances. But, we've found for real-time, the quick connections across it works fine.

I have used the tech support, at the very beginning when we had it. We didn't really know how to use it and they were very helpful.

We weren't using any other solution. We wanted to be able to connect to Salesforce. We have IBM InfoSphere DataStage and the connector for DataStage was a lot more expensive at the time.

The setup was a little big complicated because I hadn't done it before. But, now we've had Cast Iron for quite a while and we've just purchased IBM App Connect, a new version. We'll be standing that up and I think it'll be simple for us.

We went with IBM for Cast Iron because we had already been using IBM products. This solution fits with what we needed it to do and with the rest of our landscape, i.e., the other IBM products.

A vendor that we trust and that's been around, is the most important criteria while selecting a vendor.

It's been very good. There were issues only because of it's scalability, since we have the Hypervisor Edition, that we've run in to some of the sizing that has impacts on the performance.

Give this one a try, especially the new IBM App Connect because it fits so well with the new design and the way it fits in with the new APIs. You can build out new APIs with it. I would say to use it.

Its reliability and the large number of endpoints for connectivity are valuable features.

I would like the ability for more than one developer to work on the same project (source control/branch merge). If the project has more than one orchestration, you should be able to have different people working on each.

I have used the product for about nine years (since before Cast Iron was acquired by IBM).

We are running the HyperV version and have had no problems with stability. Though if not designed well, the projects can definitely run out of resources when processing.

It scales well. We are considering moving to the cloud version, as only one or our endpoints is local and all the others are SaaS endpoints.

They give excellent technical support.

It is easy to set up. HyperV has OVF that you deploy to a VMware ESX Server.

IBM has gone back and forth on licensing for this product. Make sure you get the licensing that lets you have unlimited endpoints; otherwise, you will need to account for each separate endpoint in your licensing costs and adding more automation has a price impact.

We evaluated MuleSoft and Dell Boomi.

Your developers should be well-versed in XML and XSLT. These are behind everything.