Microsoft Azure API Management Reviews

We have several layers in our infrastructure. Some of our layers are more connector-based and interfacing with our systems of record and outsource service providers. Right now, we use Microsoft Azure API Management for that. We're now deciding what to use for the process layer, which is more orchestration and data-mapping-based.

If you were truly a .NET shop and truly Microsoft cloud-centric, this is the most cloud-native offering, and there are some benefits to that. It's really easy to use for simple passthrough APIs. It feels more modern and compatible with people with .NET skill sets, and that's a strong selling point.

The solution's data mapping and orchestration are very code-intensive or require callouts to external systems. They seem suboptimal for the more complex use cases.

A simple installation is very easy, and I rate it ten out of ten. However, it goes to the other extreme when you try to do complex use cases, like orchestration, aggregation, and data mapping. For such scenarios, I rate the installation a five out of ten because of the code intensity and maintenance you would incur.

The solution appears cheaper because it's a cloud SaaS model. Its benefit is that you can use a small amount, and it'll appear very cheap. However, once you scale up to your full volume, it'll be more expensive because it'll incorporate a bunch of different services that are holistically more expensive than the alternative.

There are around ten key security characteristics I look for in a solution. On the surface, my analysis so far seems to indicate that Microsoft Azure API Management has the ability to deliver on those parameters. Given the close relationship between Microsoft and OpenAI, we hope the solution will evolve more quickly and incorporate AI more fully, but we don't know for sure.

Our goal is to create a composable financial institution. We are trying to get developers not to be the bottleneck anymore but to be more agile, to grow market share, and to grow national reach. To do all those things, you need very agile, world-class APIs. There are ways to make both work for that. We'll have to evaluate which one is the shorter path.

I would recommend the solution for cloud-native Microsoft .NET shops with simple API requirements. However, I would not recommend it for multi-cloud, larger shops with more diverse or complicated use cases.

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

We use Azure API Management as a migration tool and for security. We have services interfacing with Boomi and APG, and we're migrating them to Azure API Management and Azure Logic App. This involves writing integration logic in Logic API and exposing APIs securely to external networks. We also integrate Snowflake with ServiceNow data using Kafka and Azure API.

Our primary advantage with Azure API Management is the ability to achieve real-time data updates for user queries. This is vital in retail, where customer concerns need immediate attention. By using Azure API Management with Snowflake and Kafka, we maintain accuracy and speed in our data processes and transactions.

Security is the top feature of Azure API Management. It allows the use of existing identity servers or OpenID for secure API sharing. The speed of deployment and the ability to integrate legacy databases using API wrappers for external exposure are also valuable.

Azure API Management lacks integration capabilities seen in other tools. It should at least handle basic transformations, which currently fall to Azure Logic Apps. Including a mapper, like IBM API Connect, would be beneficial. There's a need for better integration features without additional solutions.

I have been working with Azure API Management for approximately two years.

Azure API Management is stable. I haven’t encountered significant issues, and I would give it a nine out of ten for stability.

Azure API Management earns a seven for scalability. I feel there are fewer features to explore, compared to other API management solutions.

Microsoft technical support is excellent, and I would rate it ten out of ten.

Positive

Google APG and IBM API Connect are some of the tools used earlier. They were preferred for their integration capabilities and better mapping features.

The cloud setup for API management is simple. However, for hybrid or on-premise models, it requires considerable resource allocation, needing multiple virtual cores and a Cassandra database.

Azure solutions are priced very low, which is a benefit. However, if additional features are required, like AI integration, more investment might be necessary.

Google APG and Kong API were evaluated as alternatives. Google is considered better because it offers integrated features within API management, like Gen A features.

Azure API Management is better suited for enterprises due to its extensive toolset and roadmap for data integration and scalability. For smaller companies, lightweight alternatives like WSO2 are recommended.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We use the platform to configure API connectors with authentication and generate reports. We utilize it within a private cloud environment as part of our system integration services, providing these services to other users.

The solution has significantly improved our organization by providing a user-friendly and easy-to-deploy API management system.

The platform's most valuable features are its rule-based permissions and comprehensive API lifecycle management capabilities.

The solution's deployment process could be slightly improved in terms of time. Additionally, they should enhance AI capabilities and more advanced integration features with other platforms.

I have been using Microsoft Azure API Management for six years.

The product is stable. We haven't encountered any stability-related issues. 

The product is scalable. 

We have used different solutions in the past.

The initial setup was straightforward and user-friendly.

We implemented the product with the help of our in-house team. 

We have seen significant financial benefits after using the product. Moving to the cloud offers many advantages.

The product pricing is reasonable. 

We evaluated other options, including solutions from AWS and Google Cloud. However, Microsoft Azure API Management stood out for its feature set and easy integration with our existing infrastructure.

We use the platform for all acquisitions and system management, automating various processes. Our API server is integrated into our cloud system ensuring everything is documented in a single query.

I rate it a ten out of ten. 

Azure API Management is an API gateway that can be used for different purposes, for example, to monetize APIs. We also use it for logging and security purposes such as performing authorization.

Azure API Management cuts out a lot of concerns that developers have. Developers can leave concerns like authorization, authentication, tokens, or any data shaping layer for their APIs to the API gateway or APM service. They can then focus on creating APIs and functionality that matter for the business.

Support for GraphQL could be better. We work with different standards, but at the moment, it only supports GraphQL as a specification. However, support for GraphQL, which is a different communication specification, needs to improve.

I have been using it for at least six to seven years. It is a cloud service, so it is the latest version from Microsoft.

It is a stable solution. 

It is a scalable solution. You can add more computing power to your APM gateway. It also gives you the ability to have VNet integrations with your on-prem. It is one of the leading products in the API management space.

It is not just software for users but software to handle requests. For example, for a B2C e-commerce store, all requests that users make from within the store pass through this API gateway. So it is defined by the number of requests to the API gateway, not by the number of actual users who use it. If you look at the number of requests, it would be a lot from all the different systems we have within Pampers.

The support for the GraphQL standard could be better. But in general, the support falls under the micro agreement you have with Microsoft. We personally have not encountered any specific issues with regard to contacting Microsoft support because something isn't working. But I believe this would fall under your enterprise agreement with Microsoft.

The initial setup is straightforward. Setting up an instance of Azure API Management in the cloud is as simple as setting up Azure. It would probably take around 30 minutes to spin up the service, and you can use it. However, using the gateway in your projects is an ongoing process. If you just want to set up a gateway, it will probably be quick and easy.

When it comes to the deployment process, it's a cloud solution, so you can use infrastructure as code using Azure Visor or ARM templates or follow different infrastructure support solutions to be able to deploy the solution on your own public cloud subscription.

You would need knowledge of Azure to deploy and maintain it in the IT room. Depending on your model, if you have different integrations with, for example, on-prem integration, or network-level integration with your on-prem network, it will be a bit more complex than it is.

ROI depends on how you see the value it adds to your APIs. If you have a strategy where you monetize your API, you can create ROI attempts. Most of the time, where we work in companies, it is more of an internal policy or security guidance that we need to have an API gateway, especially for purposes like spike testing or different policies. So we haven't done something like an ROI analysis on the API gateway.

The pricing model depends on how you use it. There are different tiers of API management: a standard tier, a developer tier, and a premium tier, and each of these tiers will have different features. I think the premium tier can start somewhere around 2000 euros a month. 

The developer tier is free to use, but the standard tier could also be around 500 euros a month. So there are solutions that are not that cheap, and the cost would increase with the additional features you want. The more enterprise-level features you go to, the more expensive it gets.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

API management is a solution that anyone with a public-facing endpoint or an API should consider. Multiple APM solutions are in the market, like Google's Apigee, Azure API Management, and others. They can be expensive, so it depends on your API's value and the financial loss you could encounter in case of security attacks. These different aspects should be considered when using an API management gateway.

I am a software architect. The organization upgraded to API premium in order for us to be able to use virtual networks and security growth. We migrate things from Google Cloud. We use the solution to have an API that is calling internal resources to expose data on the internet. Furthermore, we also use API Management for partners and mobile apps.

Other than the cost, it is difficult to customize. The external policies are impossible to look at and configure.

The deployment time is too long. It is difficult to have multiple authentication mechanisms and authorization mechanisms at the same time.

Microsoft Azure API Management has not improved since I last used it in 2017.

By using Azure you are forced to use their technologies. For example, I wanted to use PostgreSQL, but I could only use SQL server. I also wanted to use Java or TypeScript, but the only option is .NET, which we do not use. They are very difficult to collaborate with as the solution does not integrate with other products. 

They do not offer extensions, if you want to use a Swagger extension you have to use XMLs, which are very complicated.

Another concern is that Microsoft Azure often does not have enough Linux machines in the region. If you want to deploy on Linux, and there are not enough, they will tell you to deploy in another region, or it has to be on the Windows server instead.

I have been using Microsoft Azure API Management for two years.

The solution is a bit more stable than it was in 2017. It is reliable.

Azure API is scalable. We have 20 people working with this product as a gateway to the outside world.

Technical support with Microsoft is poorer than AWS, but better than the one from Google Cloud. They reply too late. We had premium technical support at one point, however, they did not reply with anything we needed at the time. There is a concern with the knowledge base as well as the procedure in how they are instructed to reply.

I would rate technical support a three out of five.

Neutral

We switched to Microsoft Azure API Management because two years ago, someone in the organization decided to use this solution. I would never have made that decision.

I have had prior experience with API Gateway and Apigee.

The solution takes one hour to deploy. Like everything on Azure, it is difficult to create the deployment scripts because the ARM and Bicep that they use are awful. Deployment is very complex.

I would rate the experience of the setup of Azure API Management a two out of five.

The solution doesn't require maintenance as it is cloud-based. However, it does require monitoring.

The upgrade to Azure API costs 2000 euros per month, per instance, per unit. Our finance department asked us to find cost reductions. After conducting an analysis, I came to the conclusion that it was impossible unless we sacrificed security.

Azure API Management is the most expensive solution on the market. AWS is at least four times less expensive. Any price comparison needs to include the additional cost of the security you will need to purchase from Microsoft, which comes from their premium plan. The only way to reduce the cost is to sacrifice security when using Microsoft data.

I rate the pricing a one out of five.

The other option is API Apigee. It is the best in class and less expensive. Its deployment to API Gateway from AWS is easy and fast. 

In AWS API Management you can build everything from open API specification files. AWS has Swagger extensions that are built in that can define everything in Swagger.

I would switch solutions if I could. 

Any organization looking to implement Microsoft Azure API Management should look at other alternatives. Be cautious of the marketing behind Azure products. Once you decide on your solution, it is difficult to change.

I would rate this product a four out of 10 overall.

There's a customer who wanted to migrate their API from their on-prem environment to Azure. They're looking at utilizing Azure API to manage all their other APIs. We just started with migrating one of their APIs. They're still working with it, still trying to learn the difference between what they had for on-prem and Azure. We are in the process of actually migrating a lot of their APIs.

Access control is the most valuable aspect. It's the main reason really why a lot of clients are moving - as we are able to deploy multiple APIs and be able to also segregate who's got access to which API, who's got access to the other API. That centralized management is what the customer is really looking for.

The initial setup was okay.

The solution isn't missing anything. For the use case that we have right now, it's perfect. It offers everything that you'd look for in an API Management solution.

There's a new developer portal that's been added before they rolled out the new updates. I haven't really checked it out, however, the developer portal that they introduced is better than before. They've really improved on that one. If you are using the old portal, it's not as good. 

We have two different customers. The other customer wants us to move completely, to migrate their APIs to Azure. The other one wants to manage their APIs, which are running on-prem. I've explored that in the flexibility, in terms of integration with an on-prem environment. The integration could be improved for those on-prem use cases. 

The integration with other API gateways is where they might try to improve.

Support could be better. 

I started using the solution six months ago.

In terms of stability, I have seen that it is packaged into four different plans. If I'm not mistaken, there should be basic, standard, conception, and developer. I wanted to try to avoid deploying a lot of units, it uses a concept of compute units or scaling units. I was using the conception tier, which is not designed to be highly available. I was testing features, I didn't mind the level of availability. I suspect that if you choose the high-end SQL, it's most likely to be available. However, in terms of cost, I'm yet to find that out.

If you compare the SQL, and that's one that really supports scalability across regions, it's good. It's very scalable.

We have ten developers using the solution right now. 

We do plan to increase usage. 

Microsoft is huge, and when it comes to support, it's not so great as compared to, if you have something software specific. Whenever you ask them a question, they assume you to know everything. It's challenging to get the level of support that you'd want.

Neutral

We used to use Kong. 

Kong is more of an on-prem API gateway, and this one is cloud-based. And given that many customers are migrating to the cloud, it was actually one of the reasons why we're convincing the customers that we have used their APIs to migrate to the cloud. 

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. 

I have a basic understanding of the API fundamentals. Those were what I was looking for; that's what I was looking for first, just to see if my understanding of the fundamentals. With my level of knowledge, it was fine. 

For someone with basic knowledge, you can deploy the solution within a week. 

There is some maintenance needed. However, that person is supposed to be someone who's more DevOps inclined.

We handled the initial setup in-house. 

I've been using the conception tier. If you choose the lower-end tiers, it'll be fine, cost-wise. However, those tiers are just for development purposes; they're not really for the production environment. I would suspect if you move onto the higher tiers, it'll be pretty pricey.

I was looking into Azure API Management and the equivalent and in AWS.

I wanted to compare the functionality between Azure API Management and Amazon API Gateway, as there's a customer that wants AWS API Gateway instead of Azure. I just wanted to see if the features are similar. I'm looking into that now. 

We're a Microsoft partner. 

The role that I have right now is a role where I'm a deployment engineer for cloud services, so depending on what the customer wants, someone's migrating from their on-prem, from VMware, the Linux, the Hyper-V to Azure, someone has to design highly available solutions, like applications that are tiered, that is three-tiered or two-tiered. Some want to utilize API Management. With API Management, we don't have a lot of customers on that front, as they sort of don't understand how it works. Right now, it's an area where we've worked with two of our biggest customers that have got multiple APIs on their on-prem environment. I've got basic experience, especially on what an API is and the benefits of Azure API Management as compared to what they have.

We're using the latest version of the product.

We are completely moving our customers from their on-prem APIs. It's a complete cloud solution; they don't want any hybrid solution.

I'd rate the solution six out of ten based on the level of knowledge I have. The learning curve is pretty high. It's API Management and it also supports API gateways. It didn't decentralize those features, so the learning curve that's there for someone is a bit much.

I would recommend the solution to others. 

Our use case for Microsoft Azure API Management is connecting banking systems to Bloomberg Services. We're also using the solution to connect internal services within the banking system, in particular, credit simulation.

Microsoft Azure API Management has many valuable features. One is the developer portal, that's very useful for teams. The tool also provides layers of security. I also found the caching, automatic documentation, and version management functionalities of Microsoft Azure API Management most valuable.

I like Microsoft Azure API Management because it works pretty well.

An area for improvement in Microsoft Azure API Management is deployment, in particular, the deployment of versions in Oryx. The development to production instance isn't adequate for me and needs to be improved.

To explain further, the specification for the API needs to be deployed from development to production through scripts, and the scripts need to be done manually or need a lot of manual intervention. The process isn't automatic or click-and-point, so you need a technician. 

Microsoft Azure API Management lacks automation, which is another area for improvement.

In the next  Microsoft Azure API Management release, I want to see the automatic deployment of its versions.

I have three years of experience with Microsoft Azure API Management.

Microsoft Azure API Management is a very stable tool.

Microsoft Azure API Management is highly scalable.

I contacted the technical support team for Microsoft Azure API Management just once. It was for a minor technical issue, and I got the response within the expected timeframe.

On a scale of one to five, support is a four for me.

I worked briefly with Amazon API Gateway but not as thoroughly as with Microsoft Azure API Management.

Amazon API Gateway is a much more technical solution and even less user-friendly than Microsoft Azure API Management.

I switched to Microsoft Azure API Management because the company decided to change its environment to Azure, so the obvious choice was Microsoft Azure API Management.

Microsoft Azure API Management is effortless to set up. It has a brilliant setup.

It took me just two weeks to set up Microsoft Azure API Management.

I'd rate its setup a four out of five.

Microsoft did an excellent job with the available documentation for Microsoft Azure API Management, and the setup process was quite simple, so I implemented the solution without Microsoft's intervention.

Microsoft Azure API Management isn't the kind of tool that directly impacts the business. It just makes the integration of different applications easier, so in that sense, it pays for itself within six months.

The licensing cost for Microsoft Azure API Management is publicly available and goes from a developer edition that costs $26 to $30 per month. It may have changed, but it's in the neighborhood of $30 per month. I believe there's also the enterprise edition, which is highly capable and costs $2,500 per month.

If you want to use Microsoft Azure API Management, there are no additional fees. Still, of course, within an enterprise environment, you don't use just Microsoft Azure API Management because you need networking or virtual networks. Still, that comes with the territory because if you want to develop solutions in Azure, you need to buy services, servers, networks, etc. Regarding the usage per se of Microsoft Azure API Management, you don't need to pay anything else. You pay for it if you need it and then have to configure it within the Azure environment. Aside from the standard licensing cost, there are no hidden costs from Microsoft Azure API Management.

Pricing for the solution is competitive, so I'd rate it as six out of ten. If the scale is one to five, it's a three because it's the market average.

I'm using Microsoft Azure API Management, though I've stopped active development. I'm just a user of the solution at the moment.

As Microsoft Azure API Management is a cloud tool, it's automatically updated, so I'm always using its latest version.

The solution doesn't require any maintenance.

Seven people used Microsoft Azure API Management within the company in the past: me, the development team, and the production team. Right now, there's reduced usage, with two to three actively developing Microsoft Azure API Management, then one that handles the maintenance by checking to see if the solution still works, and that's it.

I advise anyone looking into implementing Microsoft Azure API Management to invest time in learning the functionality. It takes around a month to invest, plus a good developer, so you can understand all the quirks and functionality the tool can provide, which is quite a lot. Once you have the knowledge or understanding, you can add much value to the development and integration process through Microsoft Azure API Management.

My rating for Microsoft Azure API Management is nine out of ten.

My company is a customer of Microsoft Azure API Management.

In general, we use it for the front application, like the mobile banking application or some other service stuff. We found that it's easier to maintain these internet connections and so on, on the cloud.

In general, we started with Microsoft Azure Cloud as we needed a close integration with our internal or Office solution. In case of Microsoft, Azure Active Directory is easily integrated within the Microsoft platform, including Office. In particular, in API Management, used as front-end APIs, it's easy to manage. Now, we are looking ahead to the hosted solution, which is very nice. 

We use Microsoft due to the stability of the company. 

It's efficient enough and it's just enough for our needs to manage rules and so aforth for API management. We use it due to Microsoft's reputation. We need a stable provider. We cannot play with some providers. 

It is easy to set up. 

The solution is scalable. It is stable as a product as well. 

It's okay. It's not as good as Google. For instance, in Apigee, in Google.

One of the most important improvements for us would be if it supported the HTTP/3 version and new protocol over a quick connection. It's a relatively new standard since 2020. 

I've used the solution for about three years. 

It is a stable product. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash. The performance is good. 

While it is scalable, there is some costs involved with expanding. 

We have about 100 people using the solution at the company in terms of deployment. In terms of clients using the solution, that's in the millions. 

We have a premium subscription. We have a local company, a local Microsoft office. We do not have a problem with the support from Microsoft.

We used a CA solution before, and CA was sold to Broadcom and everything changed, politics and so and so. We had to disable CA platform due to the provider. We believe the same issues will not happen to Microsoft.

The initial setup is very easy. It's not complex at all. 

There is a special group that is  responsible for the support and implementation of the platform.

I'm aware of Google, or Apigee, and it's quite a robust product. 

We are a customer and end-user.

It is a subscription service. It's definitely not on-premises in our organization. We do have our core system on-premises, of course.

I would recommend the solution. People have to first understand the different types of subscriptions, however. There are four of them, developer, and intermediates, and then premium, and it's costly. That said, it's not that expensive. It's a very technical piece of software. I can say it's stable and it satisfies our needs. It's just a bit complex. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.