MuleSoft API Manager Reviews

Our first primary use case for this solution are APIs based in MuleSoft. It's natural to use the MuleSoft API manager for MuleSoft APIs. We also use this solution's API manager to manage non-MuleSoft APIs in environments based on the MuleSoft platform. It functions as a kind of API gateway for us.

The feature I found most valuable is the ability to add a central place for managing your policies for APIs. This makes our life easier and enables central monitoring.

I would like to see MuleSoft expand the range of APIs you can manage with it beyond HTTP, GIPC, and others.

I have been using MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager for about six months.

I would rate the stability of this solution a 10, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the least stable, and 10 being the most stable.

My impression is that this product is quite scalable. I would rate its scalability an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

I have not had any contact with their technical support team.

The initial setup was relatively easy. I would rate it a 10, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the hardest and 10 being the easiest. The deployment process was done with an in-house team of three people.

We have seen a return on investment but not from the product itself, but rather from the platform. If you adopt the whole platform, you can build composable applications. This will cut your time creating new applications and updating them – once you have everything running – by up to 50%.

I would rate the pricing of this solution a seven, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best. My opinion is that it's a bit expensive but they do offer a lot.

The advice I would give to anybody looking to try this product is: if you have a lab, test out all the MuleSoft features to make sure that they will bring what you need into your environment. I would say that with any product. It's always good to have a list of requirements and make sure that the product does what you want.

Our primary use case is API connectivity when integrating different systems or applications with the help of the API. There is a very robust API architecture that helps in directing different applications. In the B2B space, they have come up with a new offering, which is a partner manager, that helps to have the B2B integration with any EDI, X12, or any other B2B transactions. 

I believe the API connectivity within the cloud marketplace is most valuable. There are a lot of services available in the form of services or microservices, which are exposed via the API. Currently, API connectivity has become a mainstream integration. When you go to the B2B space where they have the partner ecosystem, there are a lot of suppliers and vendors there. Integrating them seamlessly for your supply chain or for your inventory management creates an efficient team of partners.

I think that they can bring some transparency in reference to the terms of the microservices architecture. It is already there, but it is not obvious. 

I have been working with Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager for the past seven to eight years.

We have not seen many tickets which tells us it is very stable.

Everything is on the cloud and it is very scalable. We have around one thousand five hundred users onboard.

I think that technical support is good. They are coming out with a community edition as well as an enterprise edition. If you have full enterprise support, they are pretty responsive. 

Positive

The setup was great. Depending upon the size of the program, and the number of integrations that you are having, you will keep on adding the people based on the business requirement.

If you have a strong engineering background and capability, then you can setup everything into automation where you can have three processes. When the pipeline is setup, then the deployment can be easy. They call a C4E Center for Enablement, which helps in terms of setting up the right practices, platform, governance, and best practices.

I think that it is pretty expensive. It is very innovative in terms of multiple licensing options out there. So, depending upon the need of the organization, they can offer different kinds of licensing. 

I would rate Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager a nine out of ten.

We could employ it for tasks like access control and other minor functions like controlling licenses using an API gateway alongside SS rules.

It is a good management tool for controlling purposes.

Since most components are situated in the cloud, there's one particular hosted in the cloud. This presents a considerable challenge. While all other components are implemented on-premises, this specific one isn't permitted to be hosted in the cloud as per customer requirements. Shifting this component to an on-premises environment requires a significant effort. 

I have been using MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager for more than two years.

It is a stable product. 

Regarding scalability, I have some uncertainty. During our interaction with the vendor, they introduced us to the possibility of running MuleSoft within a Kubernetes environment. If we can leverage this approach, it could potentially enhance scalability. However, during the testing phase, I found that the implementation process was rather complex.

I would rate the scalability seven out of ten.

The support is satisfactory.

Neutral

It is complicated. I would rate it three out of ten. We collaborated with professional service experts based in Hong Kong. When delving into the architectural aspects, it became apparent that the setup was intricate. Consequently, we relied on their assistance for both the installation process and the architectural design. The project itself extended over a considerable duration, not solely due to its length but also because it involved multiple components.

It is extremely high, and I would rate it one out of ten.

Personally, I find this to be a satisfactory option. I would rate the product seven out of ten.

Our primary use case for this solution is for infestation and backend services. It is also a gateway. We use it heavily because Azure offers better pricing than its competitors. 

In addition, we use MuleSoft to run APIs. 

I can explain how this solution helped our organization through an example. Let's say, I want to buy my home insurance. I'd go to the market for the digital product and get a quote. Upon accepting the offer, I'll go through payment and then a three-step process for binding. After that, documents will be released to me in a multi-step process. MuleSoft provides a lot of the visualization and you are able to do the mapping and confirmations. It powers some of the connectors out of the box and you're able to connect to the different endpoints. You do not need to write many core basis and this is a great advantage.

The most valuable features of this solution are the Acura Station and the API Gateway.

The cost model could be improved.

I have been using this solution for around two years now.

I would rate the stability of this solution an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

I would rate the scalability of this solution an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

I would rate the pricing model of this solution a four, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the most expensive and 10 being the best pricing.

Overall, I would rate this solution an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

I use MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager to manage and work on APIs for my company.

MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager is a great solution. I like it very much because of its speed of delivery and because it allows API-led integration.

I also find MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager beneficial because it gives me a lot of information about who's consuming my APIs. It also has an analytics feature.

As a solution, it's easy to use. I also like that you can manage APIs easily on it.

An area for improvement in MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager is the process of applying policies because it's manual. It would be great if MuleSoft could make the process easier, particularly by automating it.

I also want to see more features added to MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager. One example is deploying an API without manual intervention to make processes faster.

I've been working with MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager for five years.

I found the stability of MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager good, so the solution is a ten out of ten in that area.

Scalability is a problem in MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager mainly because of the cost to scale it. Scaling the solution is very expensive, so it's a real problem because my company needs to create a lot of architecture to solve the scalability issue, mainly because it has many APIs, which means more interfaces and channels. After all, one API is bound to a channel point of entry, and you have to separate each application or two or three applications to improve scalability, which is very difficult for my company.

Scalability-wise, I rate MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager as five out of ten.

MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager provided excellent technical support, so it's a ten for me on a scale of one to ten.

Positive

We used a different solution before MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager but went with MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager for digital transformation.

The initial setup for MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager was easy.

I'm giving it a ten out of ten in terms of setup.

My company has a lot of APIs, so for thirty applications, the total time it took to deploy MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager was two hours.

Our in-house team deployed MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager for the company.

I want MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager to be cheaper because when you scale up, it becomes very costly. Price-wise, I'd give it a seven out of ten.

I work as a tech lead. My company is a MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager customer.

About ten people from different departments take care of the deployment and maintenance of MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager.

I'd tell others planning to implement MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager that scaling the solution can be costly. Hence, it's essential to factor in the costs. I'd also tell others that MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager is easy to use. Still, as a solution, it would benefit more from improved DevOps to make it even easier for users and result in more business for MuleSoft.

I'm rating the solution eight out of ten because it's easier to run and manage than others.

Our primary use case for the solution is managing all the new APIs, and we deploy the solution on cloud.

We were trying to integrate, and we were trying to expose ourselves to external B2B scenarios. So we exposed our APIs overall and new API management. We found it easy to configure partners. It also allows us to create a new client secret, providing access limits, rate limits and more by splitting it into multiple tiers of services.

The integration of API management with security features is valuable. For example, communication security is very strong, and it automatically decrypts your images and encrypts your messages during communication. In addition, it provides different kinds of policies you can apply, which is just a plug-and-play configurable, which is very easy.

Monetization and cataloging can be improved. So we are looking for monetization to understand how well we can catalogue.

We have been using the solution for approximately four years and are currently using the latest version.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. Currently, all our developers use API Manager.

We have had a good experience with customer service and support. I rate them ten out of ten.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We implemented the solution with an in-house team.

We have seen a return on investment.

I rate the solution eight out of ten. I advise new users to ensure they are configuring security as it is the most important key to success.

The entire offering and suite of tools that this solution provides have been very valuable. We are able to manage APIs on runtime on a cloud basis which has been very useful. 

The log management for this solution needs improvement. We would also like to have the capability to monitor usage metrics within the system. Currently, it is available, but only on a case-to-case basis. We would like to have an admin page where we could view and track all our usage metrics. 

We have been using this solution for more than six years. 

The scalability of this solution depends on how you configure it. When you design the implementation of the solution, you need to factor in multiple sets of requirements and configure the size of the APIs accordingly.

There is the standard SLA defined depending on the type of subscription or license. The support we have received has been good. 

Positive

I have previously used Oracle. 

The initial setup can be a bit challenging but usage of the solution after that is straightforward. 

When it comes to determining price, the pre-sales team interacts with the customer's primary integration team and the price is negotiated based on the specific usage of the system. 

If your organization wants to build reusable functionality using APIs and you are a cloud-first organization, I would recommend MuleSoft. I would not recommend this solution for tactical integrations but rather for strategic investments. You need to have a long-term vision as to what you are building, where you are building, and how best you can reuse what you build across the enterprise.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

We primarily use the solution for our APIs. We are moving from monoliths to API architecture and we have approximately 10,000 to 12,000 APIs across banks, which are hosted on this product. It also provides us a gateway service to ingress the traffic as well as whole policy management where stuff is taken care of from the PC Any Point. It also has some API-level runtime policy management, which we use.

The gateway service to ingress the traffic is great. 

The whole policy management has been great. 

It has some API-level runtime policy management, which is useful for us.

The solution is extremely mature.

You can scale the solution.

The only drawback is that, due to the fact that we are going into a completely API structured way of working, it is very tightly coupled with the vendor solutions. For example, the run times. What happens is when you have to do a change or you have to do anything, you have to rip off all the APIs and rebuild it.

If you see the features, they are really good in one sense, however, they have a certain drawback when you get into the operational way of working. We definitely need APIs to have policies at runtime. They provide a feature where there's a lot of policy on authorizations, however, the only problem is the runtime. 

When the runtime upgrades, we have to basically publish a new build pack and then do all the rebundling. When we were 2000, 3000 APIs, it was okay. However, when you start going up to 10,000 to 12,000 APIs, it was too much.

The whole cost is an issue. Deploying to production is not a very easy job in that bank as we go through the whole change process. The whole tight coupling of the product is a problem. 

As a bank, we didn't want to take any risk of getting so much tightly coupled with any vendor product. It should be replaceable as required. That's the only reason we are now changing products.

The upgrade is a very messy process. Mule 3.X to 4 or 4.2 requires you have to rewrite the APIs. It is not just upgrading the build pack with a runtime. That is something that gets us scared a lot. They came back and told us when we move to four run times we had to upgrade. You had to rewrite the APIs. The APIs cannot just work in a straightforward manner. There is a lot of change and we have approximately 5% Mule APIs and then the rest are boot APIs. While, now, that means 5,000 APIs need rewiring, after two years, we might have 20,000 APIs. They should have a proper way of having backward compatibility.

The initial setup is complex. 

If they are going with that control pane in a cloud, which is a very good feature and it is a managed service, they should give it 24/7, 100% uptime. They should also spin it across multiple regions. Currently, they are just the US and the EU is coming up. However, they should add, for example, China or Asia, et cetera. We operate in more than nearly 40 countries. Every country has a lot of its own governance and compliance and regulatory checks or some, where we cannot host to the cloud.

We have used the solution for three and a half to four years at this point.

We have a massive set up and definitely, there are sometimes a few issues, which come here and there, however, we manage to build a resiliency inside that.

We have scaled from a few hundred APIs to 10,000 APIs. Just on the retail part, the gateway service runs more than 125 million transactions per day. It's a huge setup we have. 

The only drawback back again is that their gateways are pretty heavy on hardware. Therefore, we spend a lot of money on the hardware. If you compare with Kong, Kong actually can just replace everything with two VMs. We have 500 VMs running for us as gateways. It has scalability, however, it will cost you, which is a problem.

Technical support has been helpful. There were also people embedded in my team.

We are migrating from Mule to Kong now. We just have signed the contracts and we are basically getting the thing set up. It is a big project and it is going to take maybe another three to four months to roll it out to non-production and maybe another five months into production as we need to get everything in compliance and clear.

The initial setup, if you go back three or three and a half years, definitely, for us, was complex. As a bank, we run through a lot of securities. Since then, they have matured the process. They worked with us, to do some upgrades. Kong also will have to do a few things for us, once we migrate. Currently, we are already finding some issues, which Kong is trying to help us and fix it. However, Mule took a bit of time to set up. If we were to do it now, it would be easy. 

They have come up with API management and cloud hub, which is the manual service. We have not used it much, however, there are some use cases from a different part of the bank that tried it out. It's a good option as you get rid of the whole operational management side of the whole control pane. The control pane we are running is a PC 1.7.3 or something, which is old and coming up on the end of support.

The cloud hub may solve the problem of the control pane, even though they have some issues with the maintenance windows and stuff. Due to the fact that the policies are cast in the control pane, and run times can struggle, if the control pane goes down or needs maintenance because we need a hundred percent of availability in some way or other, it needs to be resilient also. The maintenance windows can cause trouble for us in banking.

We originally signed a three-year licensing agreement.

There's room for improvement on the licensing. They could do better.

I'm not sure I would recommend the solution to everyone. The approach we have taken is, we have moved out completely from the Mule APIs to Spring Boot APIs. We will decouple the whole vendor locking and stuff. However, it depends on the use case for each company. There is no good and bad product. These guys are both very mature products. Depending upon the use case, you will have to consider how you will handle scaling, for example, or other challenges. 

Everything has a drawback and plus and minus, so pros and cons. Even Kong is a new product. It may be a good performer, and very lightweight, with low infrastructure needs. We don't know. 

Our cyber is very strong. Like us, people will have to evaluate, depending upon their use cases, all the pros and cons of security and see how it fits. 

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.