IBM API Connect Reviews

We use IBM API Connect primarily to expose APIs for various information systems in Terra and to integrate with our audit partners.

The main benefits of IBM API Connect for our API life cycle management are the core API functionalities, the developer's portal, and robust security capabilities.

IBM API Connect's security protocols enhance our data protection strategies by offering end-to-end security, mechanisms to counter common attacks like DDoS, and the ability to define policies for API groups to control traffic and prevent unwanted access to our systems.

We have encountered challenges with IBM API Connect, particularly during significant upgrades.

These upgrades demand substantial labour and financial resources, including consulting services from IBM.

I'd like to see increased flexibility, more frequent updates with new features, an efficient upgrade process, and additional AI capabilities for future releases.

I have been using IBM API Connect for the past five years.

Currently, around ten to fifteen people in our company are using IBM API Connect, and we plan to increase automation in the future to reduce manual effort.

My experience with IBM's technical support has been challenging. Accessing support and navigating their processes has limited flexibility. However, after successfully complying with their procedures and exercising patience, they know how to handle issues efficiently.

Neutral

Before using IBM API Connect, we worked with similar integration products, particularly an ESB from IBM, which was crucial in creating system integrations.

Setting up IBM API Connect initially was challenging, as expected, due to its complexity.

Compared to some other products on the market, implementation took about six months.

IBM API Connect has provided significant financial and operational benefits for our organisation.

It has facilitated integration across systems and enabled cross-organisational processes. As for the time it took to record a return on investment, we started seeing tangible benefits within approximately two years.

IBM API Connect has dramatically aided our AI-driven projects by increasing developer productivity and facilitating the development process using AI tools. It helped us automate sub-processes and perform thorough analysis for operations and security.

I would suggest considering IBM API Connect for enterprises focused on security and enhanced functionality, especially if they need rapid implementation. If they're looking for more advanced capabilities or a broader solution, I recommend exploring options like Google Apigee or MuleSoft Anypoint Platform. Each product has its strengths and focuses, so aligning with the organization's specific needs and priorities is essential.

Overall, I'd rate IBM API Connect an eight out of ten.

I use IBM API Connect to configure and manage the APIs. I also used the product for transformations. I used the product for some of its functionalities, like caching and rate limiting, especially for the backend system. Configuring the backend APIs and API proxies and opening them to external services were some of the activities I did with the product.

The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that it is very easy to use and is something that is easily configurable. The product actually provides a complete suite, consisting of the developer portal and management of the APIs, while giving access to a different set of users. The product also allows users to use API sandbox. Configuring the APIs with the backend systems is a valuable feature of the product. With IBM API Connect, I found everything to be very user-friendly, easy to use, and able to be developed quickly as well.

Regarding IBM API Connect, I have to think about what needs improvement in the future because there are a lot of products that have recently come into the market. The analytics part of the solution is an area with certain shortcomings where improvements are required.

The product's setup phase and its setup for the users in different environments, along with DevOps integration, are areas of concern where there is a need for improvement.

The product should be made available on a hybrid cloud.

I have been using IBM API Connect for four years.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution.

There are around 20,000 users of the solution for the project we are currently working on in our company.

I have experience with IBM API Connect.

Though I wasn't involved in the setup phase of the product, as it was taken care of by another team in our company, I feel that the product's setup process needs to be simplified.

The product's deployment has two parts. The first part of the deployment is about how you set it up, and the other part is to deploy your API for availability. If I talk about the part where the APIs are to be made available, then the deployment process doesn't take much time, and it is easy to make them available.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

A team of 20 people who were on the API management side were required to take care of the deployment and maintenance of the product. Initially, a team of 20 people was required to take care of the product's deployment and maintenance, but it was brought down to 15 people later.

There was a need to purchase an upfront license or a one-time license or upfront license, but I cannot remember the details about it clearly.

I would recommend the product to others, considering that IBM API Connect is one of the leading products in the market, but the concern is that it should reach the level of other products in the market, like Apigee and MuleSoft. The competition of IBM API Connect is with the leaders in the market, and to compete with them, API Connect should be a hybrid cloud-enabled product, and it has to offer a single pack to its users. If I talk about IBM API Connect, I should not be forced to purchase IBM App Connect or the other suites offered by IBM. I should be able to purchase the API Connect license easily.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

We're trying to make our business available on the net so that partners can connect, and distributors can use our services.

Its speed and performance are valuable.

It's based on a little bit dated architecture. A lot of evolution has happened after that. It's an evolving field. Kong is a Kubernetes-based platform. Kong runs on Kubernetes, but all the other ones are in microservices. So, there's a lot of improvement that can be done.

I've been using it for three years.

It's stable.

It's good. There are a lot of other good products also.

We didn't access their support much.

It's pretty much straightforward. We just downloaded and installed it.

I'd rate it a six out of ten.

We use it for API integration, particularly in conjunction with the One Link solution. One Link is a platform that comes into play during cross-channel communication within the banking sector. For instance, if a customer has an account with Bank A and wishes to withdraw funds from Bank B, it facilitates cross-selling communication between two distinct banks—Bank A and Bank B. Our primary focus is on enabling seamless transactions between different banks, and we also incorporate case and bundle links within our solution.

DataPower Gateway holds significant value for us as it serves as the cornerstone of our enterprise security controls. Even in the absence of published APIs, DataPower Gateway continues to maintain robust security measures. In the event of IBM API Connect experiencing downtime, users can still access APIs through DataPower Gateway, thereby minimizing downtime and ensuring continued service availability for users.

Understanding the architecture, deployment criteria, and communication methods of the installation can be time-consuming. The learning curve is noticeable, especially for new engineers.

We have been working with it for ten years.

I would rate its stability capabilities ten out of ten.

It is highly scalable. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it between nine and ten.

When there's an open ticket with severity one, the IBM team consistently provides timely support. We are highly content with the support we receive from IBM. I would rate it nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is relatively straightforward.

The initial installation phase may pose challenges as it requires some time to grasp the intricacies. The learning curve is significant, especially for people who don't have experience with it. While the installation may not be easy initially, users can acquire proficiency once they have a thorough understanding of the system. When deploying a new environment, the entire setup typically takes approximately one to two days. Assigning two individuals to manage the deployment process is more than sufficient. For ongoing maintenance of the solution, a single person is capable of handling all the necessary tasks efficiently.

Overall, I would rate it ten out of ten.

We use IBM API Connect for the external gateway for integration, and it is for multiple customers with the external button.

IBM API Connect is a tool that helps enterprises to build an API for an enterprise. But we use it for user experience and channel integration. We use the features of building the APIs for the experience. API is exposed to different channels like mobile channels, automatic channels, portal channels, and different channels. We use the solution's management capability to define monetization and have different plans used to control IBM API Connect. So we use the full-fledged API management tool, especially for the development, monetization, publishing, and installation parts. Also, it's all deployed on an OpenShift platform.

There are two disadvantages to the solution. Firstly, the pricing model, when compared to other open sources, is high. Secondly, the availability of resources in the market, specifically the developers available in the market, is not so much. So, the aforementioned areas need to be considered for improvement.

I have been using IBM API Connect for five years. My company has a partnership with IBM. Also, I am using the solution's latest version.

We are working with the big and the medium businesses.

The support is good and active. I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

The installation is not easy. However, on a traditional VM, it is acceptable. It can get complex since it's required to have multiple components deployed, and I think it is necessary to have the technical experience to do a global configuration for production. You need some access to get the benefits of the enterprise and the platform. Also, such things are expected because the solution is an enterprise-grade player. For such a tool to have the benefits of stabilization to support the high demand of workloads, it should have a robust configuration. That is why it's not a simple configuration. I'm talking about the big enterprise, not the medium or small enterprises. It's not suitable for medium, small, and micro-enterprises because the cost of setup and the solution, along with the license, may not be suitable for small businesses.

The solution is deployed on the cloud and on-premises. Sometimes it's private, and at times it's both also. So, you have one public and a private cloud.

The deployment can take up to two to three weeks, and I am saying this considering previous projects, connectivity, and deployment, so I am talking about the time taken to build the environment.

The solution is a very, very powerful tool. It has many, many capabilities, apart from it having many, many adapters and integration with the backend to provide you with a comprehensive portal development portal application. This comprehensive portal application can be used by the developers of API since API is a fast and powerful tool. In addition, the analytic part of the tool provides you with full analytics and defines SLA for the APIs, and you can generate the analytics to get statistics about the utilization of API, which most people use. This tool is very, very comprehensive and very, very beautiful. It's very easy to use. And in addition to that, it is an API management tool deployed on an OpenShift platform to give you the capability of containerization for sustainability and agility. So, it's part of the tool.

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

We utilize IBM API Connect for our B2B operations, and occasionally we extend its use to B2C as well. However, our B2B scales outweigh our B2C usage.

The IBM API Connect toolset is included in the IBM Stack ecosystem, providing cost-effective benefits for users. Additionally, users are increasingly transitioning from legacy server-based infrastructure to API-centric approaches. This shift has resulted in cost savings, as infrastructure previously built for future needs is now built as needed within an application model, reflecting a change in mindset.

IBM API Connect is a reliable and scalable solution.

The implementation process could benefit from improvements, as it may take some time to become accustomed to the deployment.

I have been using IBM API Connect for approximately five years.

IBM API Connect is a stable solution.

The solution can be stable, but it depends on the infrastructure used, such as the cloud and its structure.

The support from IBM has been good enough for our needs.

When comparing IBM API Connect to other solutions, there are two key observations to consider. Firstly, the toolset and framework around IBM API Connect are methodical, which sets it apart from close competitors like Mule and others. This approach can lead to noticeable improvements in efficiency. Secondly, if there is a need for customization to address a specific industry problem, IBM API Connect is a good option. It has built-in checks and balances to ensure that performance is not impacted, which may not be the case with other vendors.

The initial setup of IBM API Connect is complex, but once the implementor is used to it it's easier.

The solution is deployed by our in-house team.

The price of the solution is expensive. However, there are a lot of customization capabilities.

The solution does not need a lot of maintenance, it is similar to any other verification tool.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate IBM API Connect an eight out of ten.

The primary use case of IBM API Connect is for API monetization in the banking and financial sector. This involves API management and creating APIs for financial institutions, which is the main use case. Another use case is having all API integrations in one place. A third use case is opening an API and sending the documentation to external third parties.

The solution provides a common place for all APIs, allowing for easy sharing and exchange of information between internal and external stakeholders. So, the solution functions as an API management platform.

I am currently investigating the weaknesses of the solution, specifically in its on-premise infrastructure. One of the main concerns is its performance, as we have noticed some cases of resource consumption that may be related to our setup. We have concerns regarding the handling of asynchronous APIs and events in the architecture, particularly in the financial sector, where this is becoming more common. While this is well-addressed in MuleSoft, we are uncertain about how IBM API Connect handles this use case, as it does not appear to be addressed in the available documentation.

I have been using IBM API Connect for two years. My customers use the solution. I work for two companies, and none of them are partners. It is just a solution used in the banking sector.

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

The solution's technical support has been very responsive. I had no problems with them. I would say it's a very good and strong point of the platform.

It is an expensive solution. The licensing model is based on a per-subscription and per-subscriber end-user basis, meaning the price is determined by the end-users of the platform. Also, the price may be higher compared to some other competitors.

There are some performance issues and issues related to asynchronous APIs. So, now we are investigating these issues since they are critical ones. Owing to the aforementioned reasons, I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

Having more integration and compatibility with different platforms is what I'm expecting in the next release of IBM API Connect.

The issues with this solution are mainly around support. Recently, people were discovering that WSO2 is commercializing it, because initially it was just open source. Right now, because they are commercializing it, the intro licenses are as costly as IBM. People say: "IBM is tried and tested", so it's people who know this who'll go the IBM API Connect route. Other people who just want to try out a more scalable solution, on the other hand, will go the open source route. Others will either just do the cloud version, because everything is less maintenance, while other people prefer doing everything themselves, e.g. in-house, from scratch.

IBM API Connect should offer more versatility to its users, because they only give you a specific level of the versatility, and this is something IBM should heavily invest on.

I've been using IBM API Connect since 2015.

I find the stability of IBM API Connect to be fine.

IBM API Connect is scalable, but scaling it is expensive, depending on what kind of hybrid or software you want to use with it. Every client has a different policy and deployment need.

The technical support for IBM API Connect is standard.

The issue with IBM that many people have realized is that there are times when the person logging those complaints actually needs to know the product. With other products or with competitors, you just need to tell them about the issues, and they'll guide you on what the problem might be. Support for IBM API Connect varies spec to spec, depending on your support level and the questions you have with whoever sold you the software.

I use different API management solutions because I'm a consultant. A customer might have IBM API Connect, while another customer might have Apigee. It also depends on what the customer has. All I do is strategy and implementation, while other people just want a consultant to deliver on specific vendors. It ranges from customer spec.

I've implemented this solution through a vendor team. I've always used consultants, partners, or integrators for implementing products.

Pricing for IBM API Connect varies. If they are offering me the platform, in particular what they used to call Bluemix and what's now called IBM Cloud, it will be subscription-based pricing. They'll charge you based on how many APIs are called off your specific portion of the Cloud.

If you're doing your own private cloud, on the other hand, it's a special grade. You have to own most of that software licensing so that you can put it on your own private cloud.

I've evaluated X-Ray, WSO2, Software AG, Oracle, DataPower, and Apigee.

I do integration and I do API management. I do a lot of other things. I don't just use one product. I use various products depending on what the client asks.

For API management, I've used X-Ray, WSO2, Software AG, Oracle, DataPower, and Apigee. It all depends on what the customer has. I also have a personal experience with IBM API Connect.

How this solution is deployed depends on you. What matters the most are the gateways and the portals. The portals are mainly for onboarding. Whether you'll deploy it on-premises or on cloud is up to you. You can also do hybrid deployment in some instances, because there are people who do hybrid deployment, but the key component for aligning a deployment is mainly the portal and the gateway, because the gateway is the policy enforcement, while the portal is mainly for presentation and onboarding purposes.

Other people are running IBM API Connect, but others are not. They just prefer using their hybrid appliances, e.g. the DataPower, so it also depends. There are cases where you can just simply deploy this solution, but it still depends on the policies that you need to enforce. That's why I was saying the key components are the portals and the gateways, because the gateways are doing most of the work. The gateway handles the transactions. It does all the heavy lifting. The portal is mainly for presentation purposes.

I've used WSO2 and Software AG, and when you compare them with IBM API Connect, the principles are more or less the same. It's more on how you want to deliver the solution and what the true need of the customer is. You get people who are using it proactively, and that puts the products on the market and drives innovation, but you also get people who are really less integrated people and just build APIs on the portal. It all depends on the use cases and what the customers are offering.

The products are all different in a way, e.g. comparable to cars. A Mercedes Benz is really not that different from a BMW. It's just more of the driving dynamics, the comfort levels, and what the brands represent. A BMW will always be sportier than a Mercedes Benz, while an Audi will always be sportier than a Mercedes Benz. This is unless you're going for the real topnotch specs: the AMGs, then it becomes a different conversation. At the end of the day, it depends on the appetite and what their initial use cases are.

The number of users of IBM API Connect all depends on the deployment plan of the customer. You get fintechs, e.g. these are mainly coalitions with banks and financial institutions where they try and drive innovation through these tech companies. By giving them access to their assets through portals and APIs, they get to see most of their IPEs realized and used by other parties. These are the people that they couldn't even reach initially. It all depends on the specs and on the range.

As for technical people, I've seen that they don't have a preference in terms of tools, but it's a matter of where the product goes that gives them an inclination to stay with those, because that stack gives that effect. It's also a matter of how they can easily integrate with other components, e.g. how they can be incorporated in your two clouds, or your other CMS, to in-house. The user experience is the same as others.

The number of users of IBM API Connect can be increased. I've seen a portal that has 4,000 to 5,000 users, and these users are people who create products, e.g. applications. A lot of those apps utilize existing portals and their APIs. What's common on my standard is more payment gateways. Every institution will offer their own payment gateway, and offer a specific sense of liability they are comfortable with.

I'm not really recommending IBM API Connect to others. It depends on the investment. For people who are heavily invested in IBM, IBM API Connect is an easy solution, because you already have the underlying infrastructure, e.g. DataPower, which is the most important or expensive component of this solution. For other people, if they don't have it at all, it makes no sense to go the IBM API Connect route if they're using a different stack. As long as the product is working, and it's compliant to specific patterns, it doesn't really matter what you use. What really matters is your budget, what do you have in your storage, and use case levels.

If people just want to have something that they can try quickly and dirt cheap, anything else will do, but then, a lot of people are also struggling with adversity, because they feel like the universities or employers are not that heavily invested, and this means they're failing the present capabilities. You just need to show them how the platform works, so it still varies from customer to customer. It's also budget based.

From a ranking of one to ten in terms of features, I can rank IBM API Connect as number six. WSO2 is a five. I'd give X-Ray a four. Software AG is a number two. Apigee ranks number one for me.

In terms of flexibility, all these platforms are the same. They are the same, but they can be different in terms of target limits.

I'm rating IBM API Connect a seven out of ten. I can't give them a ten out of ten, because I feel that they have lost their touch with it.