IBM App Connect Reviews

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.

The product is a very simple integration tool with zero or minimal coding effort required.

Our organization deals with multiple systems and we want the data to be available 24/7 across all the systems. IBM App Connect has a robust mechanism to handle such scenarios.

The audit logging, transaction logging and other such similar features, such as the IBM App Connect cloud instance, need to be improved.

I have used this solution for nine months.

I did not encounter any stability issues.

I did not encounter any scalability issues.

I would give the technical support a 8/10 rating.

We were not using any other solution previously.

The initial setup was straightforward in regards to the installation of the product, configuration of endpoints, the documentation and available tips.

We looked at other products such as MuleSoft.

IBM App Connect provides a very easy way to integrate many systems with zero manual code. The deployment and maintenance is very simple. You can version your deployments as well. The documentation covers all the aspects of integration.