Apica Reviews

I use Apica for performance testing, where I record our flows, enhance our scripts, and add inline code and correlation IDs. This provides dynamic values for execution. I use Apica for automation testing as well.

Apica allows me to record APIs easily and enhances scripts through options like auto-correlation, enabling me to access dynamic fields. The tool has a test analyzer for clear reporting and downloading PDF reports. It is useful for both performance and automation testing, facilitating access to headers and payloads easily, enhancing scripts with dynamic values.

Apica cannot perform endurance or scale-up tests independently. It requires other tools like ALM. When editing scripts, only one can be accessed at a time, risking changes affecting other folders. The scripting language used is outdated, similar to Cobol.

I have been using Apica for the past year.

Apica is a stable product with no reported breakdowns or bugs.

Apica is scalable. I can add numerous scripts and perform enhancements. I have 200 scripts in my test folder, which can be easily accessed.

I contacted Apica's support for a colleague's access permission issue, which was resolved by addressing her access permissions.

Negative

The setup was very easy for me. I grasped everything within a month or quicker.

Alternatives to Apica in our organization include JMeter and LoadRunner. I chose Apica for its ease of recording complex web application flows and file uploads without needing additional tools like proxy enablement.

I find Apica challenging to learn initially due to the lack of online training resources besides documentation. It's essential for someone knowledgeable to provide KT sessions. Overall, I rate Apica a six out of ten. Its ease of enhancement once I know the tool, despite some access and learning limitations. 

One of the use cases for Apica is validating content and performing login functionalities on front-end applications. Apica’s end-to-end synthetic checks can perform login operations, navigate through different tabs or sections of the application, and eventually log off. You can record these actions, save the recording, and upload it to Apica’s synthetic monitoring tool. Every time the check runs, it will perform the recorded actions and generate a report.

The most important feature of Apica is that anything on the front end can have its checks recorded. Whether it’s a regular check for HTTP status codes or complex functionalities within a URL, Apica can perform any end-to-end flow. For functions like login, logout, and others, you need a functional ID with the proper access to perform these operations. This can be challenging if your application is an HR application or any application where a proper human ID is required, as the functional ID might fail to perform these tasks.

They need to come up with a single challenge initially, like a human ID, which becomes challenging. Then, we have to rest switches to a very low priority check. Some URLs, like HR functions, require a proper human ID for basic operations such as login and accessing data. However, regular functionality is sometimes restricted based on different organizations.  Therefore, they should develop a functional ID management system that encompasses all types of checks, regardless of whether it's functional or non-functional.

I have been using Apica since 2016. We are using V24 of the solution.

Apica is one of the best tools because whenever there is any outage or release activity going on, it properly alerts that something is wrong, and then the statistics start coming down. Also, we tested it for end-to-end functionality; if something breaks on the server, the Apica Check starts failing. We have embedded automation that will restart those servers and perform the Apica tests again. If everything is green, like end-to-end checking, and then restarting the affected servers, and then checking if the servers are up or not, and then closing the incident in ServiceNow. 

200 applications are using this solution.

I was part of a centralized support team responsible for managing a complete line of business within my organization. I frequently collaborated with another team that use the Apica tool. 

If we compare Apica with other synthetic tools like AppDynamics or Dynatrace, they primarily focus on internal synthetic and post-infrastructure monitoring at the infrastructure level. It emphasizes monitoring at the application level. It covers internal application-related metrics ranging from basic server health checks to complex UI interactions.

The initial setup is easy. There was no issue during deployment. You need a one-time installation of all the software.

First of all, it will depend on the type of application. If it's a web application, I would recommend implementing it in your lower environment first and checking for functionality. If you are satisfied, then push it to the higher environments.

Apica has detected server-related issues and various web application-related issues promptly, alerting us in a timely manner. This allowed us to implement automation within our processes, ensuring comprehensive performance monitoring from failure detection to recovery.

It was pretty easy to learn. I attended a couple of sessions with team members. They provided knowledge transfer, which took about a week. After that, I was able to onboard the company. However, for minor issues, I would still contact them. If you're a quick learner, it could take just a couple of weeks to get the hang of it.

You can integrate Apica architect into your system because they provide APIs. With these APIs, you can utilize Apica where and when it's needed. For instance, you can create your own microservices to automate tasks or integrate it with tools like Postman. This flexibility allows you to embed Apica into various automation processes or any other functionalities you require.

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

I use it for developing scripts - UI scripts and API tests. 

We use it for both API testing and UI testing. It's been okay. Apica claims to have expertise similar to LoadRunner, and we were interested in trying it. 

Overall, it's functional, and we get good support from the Apica team since it's a newer product. 

I like the transcript download feature. And with UI scripting, it's helpful that Apica handles a lot of the backend work automatically. I don't have to tag everything manually, though I can tag elements later if needed. It's really good at recording the steps.

Moreover, it is easy to set up and configure tests in Apica.  I really like how it presents the results in a sheet format. That's very helpful.

It's not very user-friendly.

There are more areas of improvement as well. We could use more detailed information in the request and response sections. 

Also, with correlation, there are times we can't correlate values in the header, and that would be a helpful improvement.

I have been using it for more than one and a half year. 

It doesn't crash. So, for me, the stability is good. 

Scalability is not bad. We have more than 20 end users using it in my company. 

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. 

The customer service and support are really helpful. 

Positive

I used LoadRunner and JMeter. 

The initial setup is easy. 

It is not a famous product, and it still needs to be worked on. JMeter is the best tool in this space. Like for API testing. 

Overall, I would rate Apica a seven out of ten. 

I used the solution in my last project for performance testing to push the load. It is a load generator tool. It is a cluster-based application. When we have to push a lot of loads, we need not worry about the instance count and how it will be handled. If the load generator engine is across the world, we can populate the load based on the region. We can push loads from specific regions.

The solution captures all our requests and responses. For example, if I execute a flow and capture multiple APIs, the product will capture all the APIs and get us a payload. It is easy to find out where I need the parameterization and correlation. With JMeter, I need to maintain the files and record the sessions. ZebraTester is easier. We do the flow and capture it. We can take it up whenever we want. Saving the scripts is also easy. Capturing sessions is a good feature. The entire sessions are saved. I can easily find the details I need.

We use ZebraTester to build scripts. ZebraTester is a bit complicated compared to LoadRunner’s VuGen. Initially, parameterization and correlation activity are somewhat difficult to do with a new tool. Once we get used to it, it's easy to build the scripts. The tool does not provide automatic correlation features. However, LoadRunner does. It finds out the dynamic values in the script and helps us to do the auto-correlation. It would be helpful if Apica could provide such features.

I have been using the solution for two years.

I used to face issues with the scripting parameters. I contacted Apica’s team members, and they helped me resolve the issue. The product is not much user friendly compared to other tools. There are not many articles on Google. Usually, when we face issues, we find the answer on Google. However, with Apica, it is really tough. Apica provides some documentation that gives us an idea of how to proceed, but sometimes, we cannot find the solution for lags. We have to reach out to Apica’s team to find a solution. I rate the stability a five to six out of ten.

The biggest advantage of Apica is that it is completely cluster-based. I need not worry about the number of users. It’s completely cloud-based. Even if I add more users, it will scale up automatically. Apica’s team will handle it. I do not have to worry about the machines. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

The technical team is really good. The support personnel are approachable. We can reach them easily. They spend a substantial amount of time resolving our issues. I have connected with them around four times for script issues. They are good to interact with and take time to explain even simple questions.

Positive

The product is deployed on the cloud. If I have three different scripts, I must upload them, align the user, and select the cluster. The initial setup is a bit complicated. The vendor has come up with some new scenarios. I can upload the scripts and create scenarios like in LoadRunner. I can trigger the test with one click. When we have different types of load testing, like step scaling or scalability tests, it is easy to create scenarios in Apica.

With Apica, we must ensure whether the cluster is available or not. If it is not available, the entire scenario will drop. It is a disadvantage. Once everything is available, creating scenarios and integrating them is easy. It will take a few minutes to set up and execute. The setup is pretty straightforward.

The product is less expensive compared to LoadRunner.

LoadRunner and JMeter are the tool’s competitors. Apica can push a lot of load compared to LoadRunner and JMeter. Apica is sufficient for my application. LoadRunner provides a grouping method.

I will recommend the tool to others. Apica is good for API testing. It is suitable for performing extreme stress tests on applications. If we want to play around with the load and do performance testing, Apica is the perfect solution. Overall, I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

I used Apica to perform load testing. We switched a project from London to Africa, and I used Apica to develop performance test scripts, design load tests, execute them, and generate reports.

Even though Apica was new, I could do everything with it that I could do with LoadRunner. Some areas, like encryption and code customization, were actually easier in Apica. It uses a basic scripting language, which is easy to learn and customize as needed. Compared to LoadRunner, I found writing and customizing code much easier in Apica.

Moreover, I found it easy to use it. Like once you learn it, it's easy to use.

Apica was a relatively new tool when I started using it. Although Apica had good documentation, it still felt less developed or advanced than a tool like LoadRunner.

It seemed like Apica was in the development phase, so my team and I faced some challenges when using it. We were familiar with LoadRunner, which has been around for over a decade. We were used to the ways that LoadRunner solved the kinds of problems you face when designing test scripts and load scenarios.

Because of that, we were always comparing Apica to LoadRunner. We'd look for solutions in Apica that mirrored those in LoadRunner. We actually suggested features to the Apica team based on how we did things in LoadRunner.

Apica implemented a lot of those features, which ultimately made our job easier. Apica isn't as developed as LoadRunner, but it was a new tool with its own benefits. The feedback we gave to the Apica team helped improve the product.

I used Apica when I was at IBM (my previous company). I used it for a year. 

We found several bugs and reported them to the Apica team. There were a couple of issues. Sometimes, the server was down, and maintenance was ongoing. 

Also, we were getting new builds because they were implementing new features. So, when I used it, the solution was down four to five times.

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten.

The customer service and support were pretty good. They implemented most of the features we asked for.

However, there is a bit room for improvement. With the support team, it just took some time. They wouldn't always immediately fix issues that I or other teams reported. 

There were a lot of features in that tool, and they were implementing those or enhancing the tool based on priority. So, depending on the issue, I might get the solution after one release.

But they would definitely provide a solution if they agreed it was a real issue in the tool. It might just take a bit longer.

Neutral

I found it easy to use and configure. 

My team purchased Apica to complete our tasks, so I was essentially an end-user of the tool.

From what I've noticed in the job market, not many companies use Apica for performance testing. The more common tools are things like LoadRunner and JMeter. 

Other than IBM, I haven't heard of companies using Apica. If I want to switch companies, I need to stay familiar with LoadRunner and JMeter or learn them before joining a new organization. 

So, from that perspective, Apica needs to be adopted by more companies, so I don't have to learn another tool.

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

I've been using Apica for performance testing, scripting our commission, and executions. The platform generally allows you to perform all performance testing cycles.

Anyone can understand the solution easily because it doesn't require a specific scripted language. Everything is on the graphic user interface. You can just click on what you want and proceed. That's the best part. Apica is very user-friendly and has the best GUI compared to other products.

Apica is costly, and there's no way to test mobile applications through Apica. You can test mobile applications through other platforms. However, Apica is only for APIs and applications.

I have been using Apica for almost two years.

I haven't faced any major breakdowns or stability issues with the solution. Apica has been consistent. Apica has around twelve powerful data centers worldwide, and I don't remember experiencing any hard blows.

The solution lets you have multiple virtual users. Although Apica claims to support millions of users, we haven't needed to scale to that level. We did not experience anything negative regarding the solution's scalability.

Apica's technical support team is really fast and supportive. The solution was not picking up some scripts when we wanted multiple scripts for execution. We had 40 executable scripts, and the Apica portal was not picking some of them, leaving behind five or six of them. We had to reach out to their technical support team. They set up a working session with us and helped us resolve the issue quickly.

Positive

Setting up and configuring tests in Apica is easier than with any other tool I have experienced. It's really easy to understand for someone with no performance testing background. Understanding and using Apica is as simple as using any social media platform.

I know Apica is an expensive solution, but it is worth the money for the service it provides.

For API, you usually have to pick the payload, like the role code. There's a place where you can paste it, and it delivers the results. The results are very clear to understand. You can use the solution to test all the APIs or any applications easily.

You can easily perform all the performance testing cycles on Apica, including script recording, script validations, script correlations, and parameterization. For correlation, you can easily correlate dynamic values by just picking up left boundaries and right boundaries to find and correlate them. The solution also facilitates the automatic parameterization of values. It's not complicated, and Apica has made it as simple as using any social media platform.

I would recommend the solution to other users.

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

We use the tool for automation. We have applications that need continuous monitoring. So, we use Apica for it.

It is easy to create scripts. We don't have to write any script. Ready-made options are available. We can select, drag, and drop the options, and the script is ready. The solution’s real-time monitoring features have had a huge impact on our service delivery.

If we have an application and the script for it, we keep monitoring it. When the script goes red, it indicates that something is not working. So, we check and analyze the applications. We keep track of applications and monitor whether they are live or not. The tool is also useful for monitoring cloud services.

ZebraTester must be improved. I did not find much information on it. It is difficult to create a script using ZebraTester. There must be a better way to create scripts in ZebraTester. The ZebraTester framework is jumbled. There must be better documentation on it.

Apica is a stable product. We used to have issues before when we did data center testing, but it's stable now. More than 30 to 40 teams are using Apica in our organization.

The product is scalable. It provides group-based access. We can create a group and then give them access.

I contacted support when I had to create some scripts for external applications. The support is helpful.

The setup and deployment were easy.

We chose Apica because we required a solution for continuous monitoring. The systems have to be stable. The scripts must run 24/7 and show whether the application is available. I will recommend Apica to others. It is a good tool.

Apica does not need any prerequisites. We must know some JavaScript functions. If we know what kind of events are happening, we can make the selections based on them. The product is easy to learn for a beginner. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

I use the solution in my company for performance testing. As the tool is useful for performance testing, it is maintained in the cloud environment.

The product is useful to check the performance of applications and our company also integrates it with other tools since we have a good bandwidth as well. The tool is useful in areas associated with server-side metrics and client-side metrics. When you talk about the client-side metrics, the tool gathers information like whether it has a 90 percent response time and the average response time.

Compared to NeoLoad, JMeter, and LoadRunner, Apica offers many features. With Apica, our company gets to use some direct options. My company is planning to use the same features from Apica in other tools like NeoLoad or JMeter. It takes time when using the functionalities available in Apica in products like NeoLoad or JMeter. It is very easy in Apica to take care of the scripting and adding the input files.

At the moment, Apica is fine, and our company has not faced any issues with the tool. There are some kinds of improvements needed in the product. If you are adding any input file, the tool fails to capture the path. How to work in the scripts and update the path takes time, making it an area where improvements are required.

I have been using Apica for two and a half to three years. I am a user of Apica.

In Apica, once you are done with the scripting, you need to upload them into ALT. Generally, if you have around 100 or 200 scripts, sometimes it won't be able to capture all the scripts. My company has reported the aforementioned issue many times to Apica's vendor, but they have not been able to provide us with a proper solution. In our company, we work with around 200 web applications, and in some applications, we have more than 100 to 200 scripts. Though the 200 scripts get uploaded in ALT, the problems stem from the fact that Apica is not able to capture all the scripts.

It is a good solution in terms of scalability.

Most of the people in my company use Apica for different projects. In my team, around thirty people use the product for performance testing. Around ten people use Apica's synthetic monitoring capabilities.

My company has contacted Apica's support team to notify them about the issue related to the product not being able to capture all the scripts. Though my company does consult the product's support team by scheduling the issues, the response provided by Apica does not match up with our expectations. My company has received a support email address from Apica, which is made exclusively available for my organization, and so we use it to contact the support team.

Previously, my company used LoadRunner.

Speaking about the setup phase, my company has integrated Apica with ZAPTEST. If you want to add any tools related to load testing, we can easily do so without any difficulty.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

Though I am unsure about the exact price of the product, I am sure that Apica's price will be lower than LoadRunner.

In Apica, debugging and other such areas are easy.

I would definitely recommend the product to those who plan to use it. Compared to the other tools in the market, Apica reduces the work time associated with scripting.

It is easy for beginners to learn and use Apica. With every tool, the concept remains the same, but the implementation may differ. With Apica, everything is easy to learn and implement.

Considering that it is a tool that makes it easy for everyone to deal with scripting, and since it reduces the manual effort required, I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

I worked with an iGaming company called Betsson, which is a very big operator. We used Apica to monitor our brands and our white labels. We used different product features, simulating user experience such as logging in to the website, playing slot-games, registering an account, etc. We used various aspects of the product.

What I like the most is that Apica can simulate different browsers and different versions of desktop or mobile browsers. You can also add certain custom scripting, which elaborates the functionality more, like logging in with a test account or making a sports bet. The most critical function of Apica is that you can monitor your websites from different locations.

In terms of operations, the solution is quite easy to maintain. It has a very useful user interface. Since it's cloud-based, you don't need to maintain any infrastructure related to the tool, and it's quite convenient.

Apica should add more features and integrations with different tools and certain ticketing systems, like ServiceNow. As a user, you would want to add checks in more locations.

I used Apica for 3 years

Apica is a very stable solution.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

About 12 people in my organization were maintaining and monitoring Apica.

Since we had enterprise, we had SLA support, which is very good. We never had any issues with the support. When we contacted them, the technical support team replied very quickly.

Positive

It's a continuous improvement, but the solution's initial setup takes one or two months, depending on the size of your organization.

The initial setup of the solution depends on the organization. It's very easy to set up the solution if a company has basic checks. It may take longer, around a month, if you need custom modifications.

The solution's pricing is not cheap, but it is in the midrange. The pricing depends on the scale of the organization using it. With more users, you will need licenses to maintain it, and it will get more expensive.

Apica has different types of integrations with Slack email and other tools. Once the response time falls under a certain threshold or when something degrades, the solution's alerting system immediately informed us so that we could take action accordingly.

As an iGaming operator, we worked in different markets. It is very efficient to monitor your brands in the locations where your markets are located. You get the closest to your user base. It was very important for us that we could monitor from the exact location where the players were playing the games. That is one of the main features of the tool. I would strongly recommend Apica to users who have B2C clients and websites in different locations.

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

I've used Apica for an insurance project. I've recorded scripts and verified responses from requirement gathering to providing additional data. I also used end-to-end scripting and the LoadTest portal for execution.

The GUI is powerful and doesn't require scripting or regular expressions. It has a vast finder for correlation, which is easier than other tools like JMeter and LoadRunner. It's also easy to integrate with other tools with a separate execution environment. The tool is also easy to use. 

We're performing various types of test execution, including load testing, scalability testing, and end-user testing. End-user testing usually takes around eight hours. We can schedule the tests in Apica. 

I have noticed that the tool isn't widely recognized outside our organization. Also, there aren't any tutorials or dedicated resources for this tool, making it challenging for newcomers to learn. It would be beneficial if someone experienced with it could provide guidance.

Without proper support, it's hard to utilize its capabilities fully. I've found it's not widely used beyond our organization. Despite my experience with similar tools, I couldn't find any mention of it elsewhere when exploring opportunities for my project. 

I believe it has the potential to be a widely used tool, especially when compared to other performance-testing solutions like LoadRunner and JMeter. Here, the results are more precise, and the execution process is straightforward.

I have been using the product for two and a half years. 

I rate the tool's scalability a six out of ten. Currently, only one account in our organization uses Apica for testing purposes.

Unlike other platforms like LoadRunner and JMeter, where you can find answers online, with Apica, you have to rely solely on their technical team. However, their availability is based on US timings, which can be inconvenient for us working in Indian timings. So, we often have to wait for their response, which can be time-consuming. 

Neutral

Installation is straightforward since the tool is readily available and doesn't need knowledge of Java or other programming languages. The tool's deployment depends on the tests. 

The tool is completely free and open source. I've been using it for about two and a half years and installed it on both my personal and client machines without needing a license. All features are available for use without any hidden fees.

I rate the overall product a six out of ten.