Amazon API Gateway Reviews

If I take into consideration the past three to four years, during which I used the tool, I would say that some missing and external configurations were not possible in the product, and it was a bit difficult to manage.

I have been using Amazon API Gateway for more than five years. I am an implementer of the tool. I am a solution architect, specifically an enterprise architect whose role is to provide the best solution for organizations based on their requirements.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

My company's clients consist of medium-sized businesses that are looking for a solution.

Considering the time zone differences, there were times when my company had to wait for a day to get a response from the support team. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

The product's initial setup phase was difficult.

There was one more team in my company that was involved with AWS and the DevOps team, who were used to struggling with the product's initial setup process. As a solution architect, I found the product's initial setup process difficult.

The solution is deployed on a public cloud.

If you just take into consideration the application part during the setup process, it can be managed in minutes.

The product can be described as a medium-priced solution, but its cost is higher than Azure.

I am involved in the process of integrating Amazon API Gateway with microservices architecture.

I use REST for Amazon API Gateway.

Speaking about how Amazon API Gateway's caching feature has an impact on API performance, I would say that my company has its own caching mechanism written in Java. Even in AWS, our company uses a caching feature.

In terms of the product's authorization and access control features, I would say that there is a component in AWS that we can use. Among the three projects my company handles, for one of the projects, we used LDAP for authorization. In one of the projects handled by our company, we have used AWS as a component.

All the features of the product are good, but it all depends on the end users who need to accept the solution. If you you ask me, the cloud solutions are very good, irrespective of whether users go for AWS, Azure, or GCP.

Considering the monitoring and analytics feature in Amazon API Gateway, I would say that my company used the tool for analytics along with Microsoft, which we recently used for Spring Boot Actuator since it provides production-ready features, including health check metrics. My company also uses a third-party API for analytics purposes.

The monitoring and analytics feature in Amazon API Gateway was the reason I implemented microservices on AWS in some of my earlier projects with a different company. Presently, I work for the Ministry of Interior of Qatar, and we now want to move to microservices. I was involved in doing some research to figure out whether to choose Spring Boot or MicroProfile, an open-source service for microservices.

The product is really good when it comes to API lifecycle management, and it is not just something that includes the balancing part or the security aspect but also the routing and the fallback mechanism.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it. When you go for a cloud solution, the main advantage is that users can choose not to have an infrastructure, where they may have to opt for a pay-as-you-go model. For small and medium-sized organizations, AWS, Azure, or GCP are fine. In my case, since I have an extensive database, I think it is good to go with Amazon API Gateway.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Our clients have specific use cases. They require a gateway that performs well and can handle around three hundred requests per quarter.

It provides the flexibility to configure, switch, and manage configurations through cloud permissions or performance settings. This includes services such as cloud monitoring tools, user connections, and the essential components required for API services. The gateway, in conjunction with other interconnected services, facilitates smooth operations. It covers aspects like cloud monitoring, user authentication through cloud sign-ins, and more. In my experience, as a service that we use extensively, it acts as a master tool, offering easy configuration and excellent integration capabilities with third-party services.

It is somewhat costly, particularly when it introduces server-related features, which are often scheduled on our end. Their support services come at a considerable cost, leaving room for improvement.

I have been working with it for over five years.

The stability is highly guaranteed, as AWS itself provides the cloud service with a reliability of 99.99%. This translates to a maximum of two hours of downtime annually, making it an exceptionally stable platform. I would rate it nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability nine out of ten. I haven't observed any significant issues indicating a lack of scalability, as it can be efficiently managed through configurations. Our clientele primarily consists of enterprise customers.

Although they deliver high-quality services, the technical support comes at a significant cost. I would rate it six out of ten.

Neutral

The initial setup is somewhat complex and I would rate it seven out of ten. The main challenges stem from the intricacies of subnets and the overall plan in place.

The deployment time is contingent on the other services we provide, the features we utilize, and the consultants involved. The duration of this process is influenced by the integration aspects, typically spanning just a few weeks. We deploy using the POC process, adapting specifics to client preferences and performance needs. Clients can choose Docker, Kubernetes, or Amazon API Gateway based on their interests and infrastructure requirements.

I would rate its pricing six out of ten.

Opting for the cloud is a swift decision, and once made, the process proceeds smoothly. The consensus is positive, with no apparent reluctance. However, a crucial point is the necessity for expertise, particularly in AWS. Without the right proficiency, the implementation might not proceed seamlessly. Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

I've primarily used the solution to call Lambda functions and embrace new features that they introduce. My role doesn't require me to explore the full range of API Gateway features, but rather simpler ones like repair gateway functions as and when required. Additionally, in relation to AWS Step Functions, there are key distinctions between instant and long-life step functions that should be highlighted. It isn’t very transparent and useful for me. Instant step functions are suitable for tasks that can be completed within around ten minutes, whereas long-lived ones can endure for extended periods by saving their states between steps.

API Gateway offers a multitude of configuration parameters that enable versatile request filtering and protection against potential attacks. It's possible to customize settings based on the specific needs of the application. Additionally, API Gateway supports integration with various technologies.

Covering all the functions is difficult due to the extensive range, but it excels in simplifying the process of building endpoints swiftly.

When working with XML payloads, there can be issues due to the lack of a seamless connection between API Gateway and Lambda functions. This has led me to devise shortcuts that aren't entirely straightforward but serve my needs.

It's important to consider the type of gateway endpoint carefully. There appear to be two distinct types. It's crucial to make an informed selection based on your project's requirements. When utilizing API Gateway, the choices one makes regarding endpoint types and properties are pivotal. After initially choosing an endpoint type, it is difficult to switch to a different type later on.

I have been using Amazon API Gateway for five years. 

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. However, one interesting point is that Amazon claims to have a step functions engine that can be executed not only in the cloud but also on your personal laptop or on-premises environments. This usage is intended for testing and development rather than production purposes. Although I haven't personally utilized it, I'm interested in this feature which can expand the market for Amazon's solution and offers an interesting avenue for evaluation.

It is highly scalable. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. 

API Gateway's technical support is good. Many common cases are already covered through guides and resources. I haven't personally encountered an issue requiring assistance, I am aware that they are responsive when asked for support.

The initial setup is straightforward. It is a service that Amazon provides. There are three types of configurations; Web UI, Command Line Control, and Plug-in. The command line control allows you to set and configure a gateway. The plugin allows you to fine-tune API Gateway settings and manage various endpoints directly.

API Gateway is an Amazon service that doesn't require deployment on the local workstation. Using WebUI, you configure settings, click "deploy," and the changes are stored on Amazon's storage, taking only a few seconds for the changes to take effect. Unlike traditional deployment, you're not creating binary files. Instead, you're adjusting configuration settings.

There is no team needed for deployment, however, a software architect is needed for the configuration.

I would recommend the solution to others. You should consider using API Gateway when working with other Amazon cloud components like Amazon RD, Amazon storage, or AWS Lambda for serverless computing. It has its own value separately but API Gateway is interconnected with the broader Amazon service ecosystem. I would overall rate it an eight out of ten. 

All of my APIs and microservices are behind the Amazon API Gateway. When someone sends a request to the API Gateway, it performs validation and then forwards it to the appropriate microservice. Several microservices, such as payment services, deposit services, and account services, are all behind the API Gateway.

For me, there are many valuable features. The solution is a managed service and requires minimal configuration, which makes it easy to launch an API. Moreover, there is support for analytics and configuration options for volume, security, rate limits, and more.

I would like to improve the restrictions and security elements of the solution, as there are certain configurations that are not currently supported. There are certain restrictions that cannot be implemented without web access.

In the next release, I would like a feature that can validate requests and filter out any jQuery injections. Additionally, I would like to prioritize these requests. I've noticed that such features are usually not available in web applications.

I have been using Amazon API Gateway for three years.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution. Although, scalability depends on the type of APIs being deployed, security, and the market.

For example, it depends on the type of APIs being deployed and the volume of calls to the APIs. The number of concurrent users also impacts scalability. Our company has around 4,000 to 5,000 concurrent users per year and sometimes up to 10,000 to 15,000. However, I haven't tested the scalability of the API Gateway for that volume of calls.

The support team is good.

The initial setup is straightforward. It took only a day to deploy the solution. You can do it with the help of documentation, anyone can easily configure the setup.

The ROI of Amazon API Gateway depends on the type of API being deployed. If you are monetizing your API, then the calculation is different. However, if you are using the API gateway for your own business services, you should consider the ROI in terms of the cost of developing a similar service on your own. This way, you can determine if the investment in the API gateway is worth it. If the cost of developing the service on your own is higher than the cost of using the API gateway, then the ROI will be great.

The licensing model is based on the number of pay calls made. It was not expensive.

We integrated Amazon API Gateway with their microservices architecture using GitHub and Java.

They could include more support tools in the product.

We have been using Amazon API Gateway for 1 year.

I rate the platform's stability an eight.

My team has around 18 to 20 Amazon API Gateway users. We use it frequently, twice a day, to stay connected. I rate the scalability a seven or eight out of ten.

We encountered challenges accessing technical support channels, such as a need for a clear telephone number and chat sessions. The PIN verification is time-consuming, often resulting in chat sessions expiring and requiring them to reconnect repeatedly.

Neutral

The setup usually takes a few hours to complete depending on the client's requirements. I rate the initial setup process a six out of ten.

A consultant facilitated the setup.

I rate the platform's pricing a five out of ten.

I couldn't recommend the product as it is an on-premise solution, and everyone is shifting the environment to the cloud infrastructure.

I rate it an eight out of ten.

I use the solution for API management. I use Amazon API Gateway for SQL Server Stretch Database.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is a stable solution with an uptime of 99.99 percent.

Amazon API Gateway is expensive, making it one of the product's shortcomings where improvements are required.

Amazon API Gateway needs to focus on minimizing latency.

I have been using Amazon API Gateway for a year.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Around ten employees in my company use the solution.

Considering that my organization is closed as of now, I can't comment on whether there are plans to increase the use of the solution in the company.

I have experience with the solution's technical support.

Apart from the cloud services offered by Amazon and Google, our company has not used any other products.

The product's initial setup phase was not complex.

At first, my company needed to deal with Amazon's authentication requirements, after which we put all our information in Amazon API Gateway. Then, we run the setup file and add the attribute data before we can finally operate it in our company.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

The solution can be deployed in two hours.

Five technicians are sufficient to take care of the deployment and maintenance of the product.

My company sought an integrator's help to carry out the product's installation process.

The solution is expensive. Though the product was previously available at a cheap rate, nowadays it is expensive.

Amazon is the number one cloud service provider in the world.

I recommend the solution to others since it is a good product.

The benefit that I have experienced from using the solution stems from the fact that it is a secure and reliable product to use.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.

We use the solution as a gateway between the front-end and the back-end. It helps us setup proper authentication and provides a neat and easily configurable view of our application's public interface.

We decided to connect our Lambda functions to the solution. Its authentication feature helps us secure the APIs.

The solution has the best scalability. We can add as many endpoints as required. Also, we can authenticate using API keys and Lambda authorizers. In addition, there are three types of gateways, HTTP, Rest API, and Web Sockets. Out of them, Rest API provides robust and more secure authentication features whereas Web Sockets enable two-way communication which is helpful to implement a chat application.

The solution's configuration for API gateways using SAM and CloudFormation templates could be more accessible.

We have been using the solution for more than a year.

It is a stable solution. However, sometimes it takes a minute to respond after the first deployment. But, once it starts, it never fails.

It is a scalable solution. We have five users in our organization.

The solution's initial setup process is easy.

I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

I advise others to use Lambda authorizer instead of API key-based authorization for more secure keys. It will help them use different tokens per customer.

So we are using Amazon API Gateway in our application. It allows us to expose our APIs and provides tools for managing them.

As for improvements, I haven't fully explored Amazon API Gateway yet, but I believe better governance and monitoring features would be beneficial.

We are also interested in telemetry, analytics, and other features that are important for our API management. I would appreciate more comprehensive telemetry information, diagnostics, and improved monitoring capabilities for the services and endpoints.

We have been using Amazon API Gateway for more than a year or two. We are using the latest version.

It is a stable solution. I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. It has been working quite well so far. 

There are over thousand users in our organization using this solution. So, I would say it is a scalable solution. 

We currently have most of the features we need. However, we are evaluating different commercial options and considering reaching out to MuleSoft and Kong for further discussions.

The initial setup is straightforward. It's not overly complex. Setting up Amazon API Gateway is fairly easy, and most of our requirements are well supported by the platform.

We have an in-house team to maintain the solution. 

I have worked with various API gateways. For example, I have experience with the Azure API gateway and also the AWS API gateway. However, we are currently planning to migrate to an enterprise-level solution, so we are evaluating MuleSoft's Telecom API.

The simple API setup is good enough for us, but we are looking for more advanced features in enterprise-level API management. We are planning to transition to a different API gateway.

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