Microsoft Azure API Management Reviews

We are a software firm and this is one of the solutions that we provide for our customers.

The package as a whole is useful for our customers.

The API gateway, when it is deployed, is not as robust as Apigee.

I would like to see better scalability and better performance. Performance is important for us.

I have been using Azure API Management for the past two or three years.

Stability-wise it has a ways to go, although it has also come a long way since we first started using it. The issues that we have had are related to performance. Otherwise, it should be fine.

Scalability is something that is still maturing.

I have been in contact with Microsoft technical support and I would say that it's good overall.

We have also used Apigee and Azure API Management is not as robust.

I would not say that the initial setup is easy or tough, but in the middle. It can be difficult in that you need to know the components in order to use this solution to its full extent.

The length of time required for deployment depends on the use case and what we are building. It can take a month or sometimes, three months.

We do not use one particular feature over another. Rather, it is the whole package that is useful.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We use the cloud model. Our primary use case is for integration between different systems. There are many use cases for the API management tool, but the most common scenario is integration between different systems.

The ease of setting up a new solution is the most valuable feature. It's very easy to set up a new solution and to deploy it to production.

The developer console for external users could be improved, especially in the testing site. I would like to see the security management for the APIs to be more granular.

It is very stable.

It's quite scalable. We've tested it in different little scenarios and it's quite scalable.

For deployment, I would advise a specialist. There is no need to dedicate any staff to the maintenance of the solution.

I would rate their technical support an eight out of ten. It could use a bit of improvement. 

I previously used RabbitMQ for another project. Both solutions have different approaches. One can work on-premises. On the whole, I still prefer is Azure API Management. I believe it's an easier solution set up and run.

The initial setup was very straightforward and simple. The deployment only took a few hours. 

I deployed the solution myself. 

I would recommend this solution to someone considering it. I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

We use this solution to integrate with a third party with API integration.

So far, we are satisfied with the product. The stability and performance are good.

It is easy to install, and it scales well too.

The technical support is good, and we get prompt support.

It could be more user friendly for developers. It would be nice if developers could view things more easily.

I've been using this solution for nearly six months.

It's a cloud-based solution.

So far, there's good stability, and we have not had any issues with it.

Because it is on the Azure platform, it is always scalable and is easy to scale as well. If you want to use it more, then we can add more resources.

We started using Microsoft Azure API Management six months ago as a POC, and now it's online. We probably have about 30,000 users.

We hope to increase usage by moving all API onto API Management.

Microsoft's technical support is good. We have the premium support package, so we get support straight away. 

The initial setup is straightforward.

Because you need to define the API contract, initially it may take about two months. However, this is not due to the Microsoft product.

We had our internal consultant handle the implementation. We had a team including an integration engineer.

We pay for a yearly license.

I would recommend Microsoft Azure API Management and would rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten. 

We have company-wide APIs which are hosted in Niger, and some of the external clients access the applications via the API, and we provide the post-data information. The clients get their data from our larger API.

The way the API management handles the calls and call throttling is excellent. 

The API management and the hosting of the API platform are great.

We haven't used API model that much, so I'm not in a good position to say recommendations as we are still exploring the Azure API management. We need more time to fully take in the solution before pointing our its flaws.

The documentation could be improved for the customer. The instructions on the district API and the initial stages of working with the solution need to be documented better so that users are more informed and they can have an improved experience.

I've been using the solution for three years now.

The stability of the solution is good. We haven't had any issues. I can't recall bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

The scalability of the solution is very good. If a company needs to expand it, it should be able to do so quite easily.

Currently, we have between 500-600 users in our organization on the solution.

We haven't really used technical support too often. Therefore, I can't really speak to their level of knowledge or responsiveness to issues.

We previously used IBM Open Shift. We switched due to the fact that the company was going to Azure and we didn't want multiple clients.

The initial setup isn't too difficult and doesn't take too long. You need to handle it to have the management gateway. Of course, every time it is deployed, then it needs to be configured to work with API. That could take some time.

For the deployment and maintenance, the size of the team you need depends on the project. We had a couple of developers on ours, for example.

I assisted with the implementation. I tend to handle it myself.

It's my understanding that the licensing is very clear. However, I'm not involved in it in any way, and therefore, I'm not sure what the cost structure is. 

We're just a customer. 

We do plan to continue to use the product going forward.

I'm not sure if I would recommend the solution. It depends on how their organization and architecture is, and if they're doing on-prem or cloud, depending on the requirement. It's very hard to say.

That said, I would rate it overall at eight out of ten.

Using an API management tool was new for us and it's definitely brought us a lot of value since implementation.

The way the solution integrates with other Azure services is its most valuable aspect.

The portal where we publish the APIs could be improved. Maybe this is because we didn't configure it. It is quite easy to bypass API management because we have a lot of information shared on the portal, where we publish our APIs. I worry there is potential for a security breach in the API publishing. There needs to be more security available on terms of the way we publish them.

We've been using the solution for three years now.

The solution is quite stable. We have no issues with it. there have been no crashes and we haven't experienced bugs or glitches. It's been quite reliable.

The solution is totally scalable. If a company needs to build out the solution to expand it, they can do so easily.

Support is very good. We have a direct line of contact with Microsoft product management's technical support. Contacting Microsoft has been very easy. It's perfect.

I did not participate in the installation. However, from the information I have received, it was quite difficult. It wasn't difficult because of the solution itself but because, for us, it was a totally new solution. We had no experience with it. If a company has a lot of experience with Azure API Management, it would be rather straightforward.

The pricing of the product is reasonable. It was one of the selling points for us when we were looking for a solution for our company.

We did evaluate a few other solutions before ultimately going with Microsoft. We looked at MuleSoft, for example, but it was a totally new environment for us. Another solution didn't have the level of maturity we wanted in a cloud product. Microsoft was also new, however, we had a lot of contacts there and we had all of their interfaces. After looking at the pricing and features, it ended up being the best option.

So far, we've been very happy with the solution.

I'd rate it eight out of ten overall.

The tool helps to manage APIs. 

The tool does what it's supposed to do. 

The product needs to introduce a developer portal. 

I am working with the tool for ten years. 

The solution is stable. 

My company has around 20-30 customers for the solution. Each customer can have about 100 users for the tool. 

Microsoft support is good. We have regular sessions with Microsoft where we can have private previews of new features. 

The tool's setup depends. If you use it in the CI/CD pipeline, then the setup is complex. To deploy the solution, you need to create a template and enable the features. 

There are different tiers for pricing. You can even use the free version. 

I would rate the product an eight out of ten. 

The main uses of this solution are sharing data, internal integrations, and combining different backend services into one API proxy. In the latter case, we extract the whole complexity of the integration, and after the work is done, there's a proxy available that can be used and reused by API consumers.

The most valuable features are authentication and authorization. I would also argue that the mediation and translation from SOAP to REST technology is equally important because it makes it possible to open up legacy systems that couldn't be opened before.

An improvement would be to provide more information about additional prices and the onboarding process.

I've been using this solution since 2016.

Azure is very much stable.

This solution is very scalable.

You really need an expert to onboard the solution because it comes with more complexity than you might think. Also, internal teams often start playing with the solution during onboarding instead of sticking to best practices, which can result in having to start the process over again.

The ROI on API management as a concept metric that we are using in conversations is that we can reduce integration lead times by 90%. So, where an integration would take a hundred days before, we can deliver that same integration in ten days after implementing Azure.

Azure's pricing is very competitive compared to platforms like Apigee and MuleSoft. However, when you start with Azure API management, you also need to onboard the Azure console and the Azure cloud environment, which comes with a price.

Azure is the best-priced quality solution in the market. If you have business-critical processes running over API management, I would advise installing managed services either internally or from a partner to have that very close follow-up. I rate this solution eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for storage. It’s for a database backup.

We really like the scalability.

It’s easy to set up.

The cloud deployment performance could be better.

Technical support could use some improvement.

I’ve been using the solution for three years.

It is stable. However, its performance is not better than an on-premises deployment.

The solution can scale and is easy to expand. It’s actually quite impressive.

We have about ten clients using the solution.

Technical support could be better. There’s a lot of bouncing around. It’s not orderly.

It is a straightforward setup. The implementation is not difficult or complex. The deployment is quick as well. It only took two or three days to get everything up and running.

We have about five technical people who can handle the setup and implementation process.

We are a Microsoft-managed partner, so we do have some pricing from the distributor.

The licensing is dynamic as it is based on cloud usage.

I can recommend Azure Block Storage to other people. However, they need to have an open mind in order to use cloud storage.

I’d rate the solution an eight out of ten.