Microsoft Azure API Management Reviews

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.

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. 

One of our applications went live a month ago, and it uses the whole suite of Microsoft APIs.

I like the support they provide for the APIs more than the solution itself. First of all, documentation-wise, both Microsoft Azure and even Google Cloud are up there. But in comparison, the real-time consulting and support for APIs make Microsoft stand out a little.

I also like the performance. Standard public cloud provider-built APIs are more resilient and flexible in terms of what feature you want to use and what feature you don't want to use, and they're more customizable. They are more resilient in terms of performance in that particular environment because that is the design aspect of the offering.

When public clouds build APIs and deploy them after testing them on their framework for a certain amount of time, I feel there is a massive difference in the product's performance. On the interface, everything is strong.

Specific to API development, I think Microsoft is still far behind AWS. AWS has grown by leaps and bounds, and Microsoft is a close second. But in terms of features and other stuff they provide, Microsoft's compatibility with publicly available APIs is a little limited. So, that is a little bit of a constraint. But what they provide is good, it's just that they need to build more on their API suite. I think Google is doing a really good job at that.

We have been using Microsoft Azure API Management for at least a year.

Microsoft Azure API Management is stable.

Microsoft Azure API Management's scalability is pretty good. At present, we have around 10,000 to 15,000 users. We are also evaluating the application, and we should grow in the cloud rapidly from now on.

Microsoft's support stands out. They provide good support in terms of consulting and operation support for their API. So, that is very helpful. Microsoft sometimes looks at the size of the customer, the way they are involved, and the size of the environment. They are also willing to go beyond periodically to consult on the best way to do stuff.

On a scale from one to five, I would give Microsoft technical support a four.

Positive

The initial setup wasn't entirely straightforward or altogether complex. It was somewhere in the middle.

On a scale from one to five, I would give the initial setup of Microsoft Azure API Management a three. For me, AWS is two, and Microsoft is three.

We did the deployment in-house, working directly with Microsoft.

Because of our partner relationship, our pricing is pretty decent. But in general, if I compare pricing, I think the initial offer that we got from Microsoft until the relationship kicked in was more expensive than AWS.

There were some unexpected expenses because we had to pause. This was due to our inexperience and because we were doing this significant public cloud migration for the first time. We were using SAP on a public cloud for the first time. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Azure API Management an eight. 

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. 

We're a bank, so one of our primary use cases for API Management is integrating our API with third parties that provide financial policies. Sometimes they want to use our services, like payment and customer inquiry, so we give them access to the API gateway. 

Azure API Management allows you to control who has access to your API gateways and assign permission levels to third parties if you want integration with third-party solutions. That has a couple of advantages. Those third parties can directly access your API directly, and you can set limits. It can also configure authentication on other API managers.

An API gateway is like a platform, and your API provides access to the resources in your environment, so this gateway is an intermediary between you and third parties. It's also the interface between your internal applications. For example, if you have a mobile app and internet banking, they can all be copied in the same API through that gateway. So, that was basically the use cases we have. So, we have almost all the API's behind the gateway.

I like API Management's sandbox feature. It's an environment where you can test out the API before putting it into production and connecting it to a live environment.

The hybrid part could be improved because API Management is entirely cloud-based, but some of our resources are on-prem, so formatting is an issue. Our goal is dual implementation. 

There's always room for improvement in terms of the user interface. Generally speaking, technology evolves, so any service provider needs to make their product as user-friendly as possible. In the next couple of years, we'll see more non-tech people handling tech solutions. The solution should be more accessible, so people can use it to create things without being very tech-savvy.

We've been using Azure API Management for about three years.

API Management is stable.

API Management is scalable. The licensing is structured so that you save more at a higher scale. The only limit to the scale is how much you're willing to pay. 

We have an enterprise support contract for Microsoft, and we don't have problems with them. 

We used IBM ESB before Azure API Management, and we're using both now. ESB isn't the same as API Management from a technology perspective. They have distinct functions, but they can do similar things. You can view an API on IBM ESB, but you can view and expose API on Azure API Management. They solve similar problems but are not exactly the same.

Deploying API Management is somewhat tricky depending on your level of technical knowledge. The first time we used it in production, we had it for a couple of months. The first month was an evaluation period, so we had it in a test environment to get a feel for how it works and possible complications. However, you could deploy it in a couple of weeks if you wanted. 

You only need about two to manage it, including one admin. It's more like a platform-as-a-service, so we don't need to do the normal maintenance we do on an on-prem platform. 

We deployed API Management in-house.

I can't disclose how much we pay monthly, but the pricing for Azure API Management is available online. It's pay as you go. The subscription packages have room for different scales. It's calculated by the number of apps or computers you use. You do not have to use the enterprise subscription. These subscriptions have different pricing, so you can find one to meet your needs for scalability.

I rate Azure API Management nine out of 10. Your choice of technology is based on your needs, budget, and C suite. Azure API Management is a good product, but there are some other good services, like Azure Connect, Google APG, and a couple of others. It depends on your needs.

Using a cloud solution has advantages because the client can immediately use the product. Another strong reason we use Azure API Management is that we heavily use Microsoft products in our organization, so Azure is a natural choice.

I am an end user of Microsoft Azure API Management. We integrate Azure API Management in our IT infrastructure as we already have an Azure cloud. API is already readily integratable in Azure because Azure is a cloud platform, and API Management comes with it. Our applications are in Azure cloud.

Azure API Management's service monitoring is not as good as an independent product used for service monitoring. There are dedicated products for service monitoring, so we prefer those dedicated products because the inbuilt capabilities are not exhaustive or comprehensive.

The simplicity to learn and apply using API Management is valuable. Another advantage is the ease of integration with Azure.

Expansion to global regions is a point for improvement, as licensing is costly. A new installation in a different region requests a new subscription. For test management, preproduction management, and production, all require separate subscriptions, resulting in higher costs. 

Additionally, only the premium subscription allows for private IPs. Even for lower environments like test environments, a premium subscription is required, which is limiting.

I have been using the solution for close to two years.

I rate the stability eight out of ten.

I rate scalability seven out of ten.

I rate their technical support eight out of ten.

Positive

We previously used Kong. Our organization chose Azure as the cloud platform for its applications, preferring products that come from Microsoft and are already available on Azure, so we switched to Microsoft Azure API Management.

Initial installation would take only a few hours. Setting up the entire environment took about two to three working days.

Initially, it appeared to be a low-cost solution, but the need for separate subscriptions for every environment and sometimes a high-end subscription for lower environments has increased the cost significantly. The solution seemed cheap initially. However, it ended up being more expensive than expected.

I would recommend Microsoft Azure API Management to others. It's cost-effective for medium to small-scale organizations that do not need a global presence. However, larger global organizations might find better alternatives.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

I have been using Microsoft Azure API Management as a consultant, primarily recommending it for enterprises.

The solution helps in securing AI projects by providing governance and control through API management.

The most valuable feature is its role as a linchpin in AI Hub architecture, enhancing data handling.

The pricing model needs improvement, as some enterprise features are expensive.

I have been dealing with Microsoft Azure API Management for a few years.

Generally, I am satisfied with the performance, scalability, and technical support.

The performance and scalability of the solution are good.

The technical support quality could be better, although the issue is not significant.

Positive

I did not work with anything similar before Microsoft API Management.

I did not face any issues during the initial setup.

I did not face any challenges with the implementation.

Some of the enterprise features are quite expensive. A better pricing model is needed.

I recommend considering Kong if Microsoft API Management does not fit the budget.

I would recommend Microsoft Azure API Management to those on the Microsoft platform. If not on Azure, consider looking into Kong.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.