IBM DataPower Gateway Reviews

I used it on-premises to secure the BUS, the integration layer. It helped us to comply with the GDPR, and, in Brazil, LGPD. It helped us to be compliant with the local regulations, local law as well.

The solution's most valuable aspects were mainly the XML Firewall and the access management as well as the IAM in DataPower which we used to control and test the usage.

The scalability of the solution is good.

The solution has been quite stable over the years.

The customization of the solution isn't as straightforward as we would like it to be. There should be more integration capabilities and it should be much easier to integrate other products.

The product should be more adapted to the DevOps process.

The product was very sensitive to heat. The hardware had a hard time if it wasn't cool enough.

The initial setup is quite difficult. You need to be well-trained in the solution in order to understand the process.

I've used the solution over the past five or six years or so. It's been a while. However, we actually stopped using it about five or six months ago, in November of last year.

The solution was very stable. We had no issues with it in that sense. It didn't crash or freeze and there were no bugs or glitches.

We found the scalability to be quite good. If a company needs to expand the product, it can do so.

We had about 30 developers and 1,000 end users on the solution.

Technical support is pretty good, once you get past the initial interaction phase. They are quite helpful and responsive. We're quite satisfied with their level of support.

The initial setup is pretty complex. It's not exactly straightforward. To develop and deploy the integration, it's necessary to have two professionals for the integration, which is a bit complicated.

I can't recall how long the deployment process took, as, by the time I arrived at the organization, the implementation had already happened. I mostly dealt with integrations.

I worked with the solution at my previous company. I'm not sure which version of the solution we were using.

I'd advise companies considering the solution to ensure they have some well-trained professionals to administrate the product. However, it is quite easy to architect the solution.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We use this solution for exposing services to our partners.

What I like most is the stability.

There is quite a lot that needs improvement. It's a very complex product and it takes time to get to control it and to know it. It's all about gaining knowledge in it.

Also, the maintenance procedure of the physical machines and physical appliances is quite complicated, and there are some issues with it. Sometimes, when we deal with the maintenance process because the machine isn't booting, it comes down to working with support in the middle of the night.

The two biggest issues of this solution are the complexity and the maintenance procedures.

In the next release, I would like to see it easier to deeply, easier automated processes, easier maintenance, easier control, better monitoring, and I would like the information or knowledge documentation to be more accessible.

I have been working with IBM DataPower Gateway for six years.

Its stability is one of the best features.

We have a pretty low load. We have not had to scale it.

We have quite a few users in our organizations.

We don't have plans to increase usage in DataPower, only with IBM API Connect.

We don't have local support, we are in Isreal and it takes longer.

Technical support needs improvement. It is not always easy to connect with them.

We are also using IBM API Connect.

The differences are the portal and standards.

DataPower is a bit easier to work with. Also the analytics. 

It has a set of tools that make life easier when it comes to developing APIs.

It's very straightforward. It has no automation and no modern tools to make it possible to develop quickly and to deploy it quickly. It's pretty much old-school.

The licensing cost is very expensive.

Other options were considered, but approximately three years ago, I reconsidered and decided to proceed with IBM.

I would recommend working on the physical appliance and not the virtual one. Consider the licensing aspect, and try to evaluate it three to five years ahead.

Also, look closely at the competition as there are now quite a few good competitors, and make sure the features suit you best.

I would rate IBM DataPower Gateway an eight out of ten.

We are using it for reinforcing data security policies, routing, and doing B2B transactions. There's more B2B as well as the ESB, the enterprise service bus.

This is a Gateway application provided by IBM. You have a lot of controls over the messages coming in, and how you can ensure these conform to your standards.

It can look for the various security threats, productions, payload scanning, and perform routing based on the content type.

You have various business to business integrations and mappings.

It would be great if the CI/CI and DevOps components were part of this offering.

Having some pre-packaged proposals or integration solutions would be helpful, like many of the iPass providers are now supplying.

Some pre-packaged connectors for integration with various applications, such as SaaS offerings, would be a useful addition.

We have been working with the IBM DataPower Gateway for approximately seven years.

With respect to scalability, the new IDG X2 appliances come with a lot of power inside these appliances so you won't have any issues. It comes with a 24-core machine, which should be powerful enough for your workloads.

We are using the on-premises, hardware application, so scalability comes at a cost. It means that you will need to install another application and another appliance.

We have been in contact with technical support and they are pretty quick. IBM has the proper support portals. The knowledge center and user community are up to date.

The initial setup is straightforward. It is well-documented in the IBM Knowledge Center.

Deployment takes between two and three hours for each appliance.

The cost of this product varies from customer to customer and the relationship with IBM, including how many offerings from IBM are already being used.

I recommend this solution. It is a good security application and it incorporates integrations and the latest security controls that are available in the market.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The whole purpose of this product is to provide high speed and high performance. From a security perspective, it takes care of everything including attacks such as cross-site scripting. Some of our services require that DataPower be implemented because of payment and other issues. To me, it's a must to have.

I like all of the features in this product and it does what it's supposed to do.

IBM is a good company and they keep working on it. The keep on enhancing it and make sure that new features are available when the legacy version goes away.

New users just starting with this product find it a little complex or difficult to use, compared to other products such as AWS. Making it more user-friendly would be an improvement.

I have been using the IBM DataPower Gateway for about 20 years.

This is a very stable product and it is a hard appliance, as opposed to software.

You can scale it easily by adding on appliances as you like.

All of the people in the organization use it from administrators to end-users. All of the applications use it.

The technical support is good, although it depends on your deal with IBM and the engagement that you have. Offering technical support is how companies like IBM and Oracle make money. When you pay more money and you're a big client, you are dealt with properly.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

For me, the initial setup is easy. If there is any trouble then IBM support is always available.

As things move more toward the cloud, things may change. People may rely less on DataPower versus cloud-based solutions such as AWS.

This is a good product, although it depends on what country you are working in. My advice is to always seek out IBM support when you have a problem.

Overall, this is a good product, and if it were more user-friendly then it might be a perfect score.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use it for API Connect for gateways and we use the backend as an MQ. I implement it for our clients.

The API Connect gateway service and the SQL injection features are good. 

Scripting needs improvement. It's hard for our customers. 

I have been using this solution for the last two years. 

It is stable.

It is scalable. It's used daily for every backend server.

Our customers are primarily enterprise-sized. Our enterprise companies use this product. 

I haven't contacted their support. 

We did not previously use a different solution. 

The initial setup was straightforward as it's on-premise. Cloud is trickier than on-premise. But deploying the containers is difficult. 

I did the deployment myself. It around one hour. If you want to do clustering it will take two to four hours. 

If you want additional features, you will need to pay more. 

It is a good solution. It's more expensive compared to competitors. IBM charges more for its products. Anybody can use it as their security device and as their multi-protocol handling device. It is compatible with IBM products. 

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

In the next update, I would like to see better development features and more scripting options. 

It is used for simple integrations that require high speed, and you need to use it in a cluster if you want it to be highly available.

For me, its most valuable features include:

• the fact that it's high-speed
• its ability to be remotely administered via an API
• the fact that it can deal with multiple protocols
• it's very quick to make changes to the setup.

Care needs to be taken when applying firmware upgrades, as they often fail.

Also, the components that they include in the product that are, in fact, a WTX, really need to be removed from the product because they tend to fail. It's got some native capabilities and it's gotten some imported capabilities and you need to know the history of the product to understand the difference between the two. Most notable is the COBOL copybook handling, which is really straight out of WTX. It's poorly supported and often leads to failures.

I have been working with IBM WebSphere DataPower for about a decade.

Like all things, it does fail, but if it's in a cluster you can have continuous availability. If the cluster is set up properly, it has multiple network ports so you can have redundant network connections. If a component does fail — meaning one appliance can fail, and they have failed — it's unlikely that all of them will fail together. So a minimal configuration of two appliances in each of the two sites is a good idea. Or you could be using the virtual alternatives on a cloud in multiple zones or on multiple clouds.

It's horizontally scalable.

When using it as a certain kind of pass-thru, I've measured it to 6,000 transactions per second. If you're using it in a request-reply pattern, that comes down to about 600. The 6,000 was the limit on the testing equipment. It wasn't the limit on the product.

Technical support is becoming rare because it's an old product.

I've used Message Broker from IBM, Oracle Service Bus, and TIBCO.

DataPower has the advantage in that it's more limited in capabilities than the other products, so it's harder to accidentally write applications as part of your integration. If you follow strict patterns then your business logic will stay in the applications and your integration logic will only be on the DataPower. Like all devices, you can actually go to extra effort to put application logic into the DataPower, but that just ruins the device for its intended purpose.

The setup is simple; it's an appliance.

All the products I've used could be priced lower. Perhaps with the exception of something like SnapLogic, they are very expensive.

TIBCO is expensive. It is reliable but it takes longer to develop and deploy. I haven't had much experience with their new microgateways, which may, in fact, provide more value. Oracle is expensive and probably more fragile. Message Broker is quite expensive but quite reliable.

If you've got it, you should use it. If you haven't got it, you probably should be looking at newer products such as SnapLogic.

It's a high-speed device. If you need an appliance on-premise, that would be the way to go. If you need to migrate something that's on-premise to the cloud, you could go to the virtual. If you're doing something new, you probably wouldn't touch it.

The product is a data-driven solution for big enterprise-level companies including airlines and banks. They use the solution primarily for customer data and gather feedback from the customers specifically. The solution is used for its user experience aspects.

The solution is thorough.

It's been tested quite well. It's very robust.

The solution is very easy to work with.

The solution is quite expensive. They should work to help make it more affordable for more companies. Right now, I wouldn't consider the price point to be very competitive.

The solution requires a lot of training manuals in order to get to know it better and to be able to use it effectively.

The solution is extremely stable. It has to be. It's purchased by a lot of banks and companies in the finance sector. They rely on a strong level of security in the products they use.

The solution is definitely scalable. If a company needs to grow it bigger, they are able to do so quite easily. It's designed for large-scale users (users that are 1000+). It's mostly for IT departments to use, not regular end-users.

I've been in touch with technical support many times. I find that they offer highly knowledgeable people. However, if a company needs to use their consultants, they are very expensive.

I've used other API solutions in the past. IBM is a huge organization in comparison to most of the competition. It has massive development and offers very high-quality products. Most others don't really compare.

The initial setup is quite complex, but it's worth the effort because it works so well as a product.

We worked with consultants to implement the system. The solution is very consultant-friendly.

The solution is quite expensive.

I'd advise other companies that are implementing the solution to make a narrow scope and be very clear with their scope before starting projects.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use the solution to secure APIs for our microservices.

The solution has the best authentication features that we use before integrating it with third-party products. Also, it has efficient features for troubleshooting and API security.

It is challenging to find the right resources while dealing with system errors for the solution. Thus, its support could be better. Also, its UI could be more feasible.

We have been using the solution for ten months.

The solution is stable.

We have five solution users in our organization. It has good scalability. We plan to increase its usage.

The solution's technical support team takes time to respond to the queries.

I used Apigee earlier.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten.