IBM App Connect Reviews

App Connect is useful for monitoring APAC and API. It allows us to do analysis based on the dashboards, and it's mostly used for security.

We have almost 10 million transactions per day.

It's a cloud solution.

The most valuable feature is the security. The agreement relies on DataPower, so if you're calling APIs to publish to the internet, you definitely need the security.

In the next release, I would like to get some quality connectors. With the configuration of MuleSoft, they have multiple connectors if you're going with the quicker stuff. There's IBM Professional and IBM Enterprise solution. IBM Professional will have all the connector things, but I'm expecting that to be included on-premise as well.

IBM should be competitive on the third party cloud side of integration so that we can do the development quickly. It would also be very useful for the cost effectiveness of project development.

I've been using this solution for almost one year.

It's a stable solution.

It's scalable.

There is a laptop vulnerability, so we connected with IBM's tech support about that.

The amount of people needed for deployment and maintenance will depend on the project. For example, we are a financial team working as a GBS, Global Business Service. Based on the project, we have two developers and a DBA.

We always have ROI when we use IBM products. If you're using multiple products from IBM, you will see ROI. If not, you'll definitely see some variation.

The cost depends upon the consumer. Right now, the cost is within $10,000 per year, based on the transactions. The license depends on if you're a premium partner, platinum partner, or golden partner.

I would rate this solution nine out of ten.

I would definitely recommend this solution to those who are interested in using it. Banks around the world use IBM App Connect.

We use IBM App Connect for business use cases involving data transformations. It can perform tasks such as converting XML to JSON, XML to CSV, or vice versa. Additionally, it can handle API conversions with mapping and transformation rules, simplifying the development process. It offers security features for APIs. It includes support for TLS (Transport Layer Security) and encryption mechanisms.

IBM App Connect should improve security features and have a faster mechanism than MuleSoft, which has better capabilities.

We have been using IBM App Connect for eight years.

The product's stability is good. However, we encounter issues with complex services. I rate its stability a seven out of ten.

It is a scalable platform. I rate its scalability an eight and a half out of ten.

The technical support services need improvement in terms of response time.

Neutral

I have used MuleSoft before. Both products have similar capabilities. Large enterprises use App Connect more, while MuleSoft is more suitable for medium or small enterprises.

The product's deployment for on-premise servers is easy. At the same time, it is tedious to deploy on clusters. We use the DevOps pipeline for on-cloud deployments. It takes a few seconds to complete the process.

I rate IBM App Connect an eight out of ten. I recommend others for the product if you need to build highly scalable and secured services. In the case of services for enterprises with a high volume of APIs, I advise them to use the enterprise version of the product.

We use the product mainly for the integration of enterprise applications.

The platform's most valuable feature is ease of use. It has an efficient design flow. We can receive or use the resources and integrate them with other software as gateway integrations.

More connectors could be available for the product as some of the third-party software doesn't have default connectors.

We have been using IBM App Connect for three years.

The product's stability itself has been quite reliable. However, we encounter a few issues while shifting to a recognized environment. It wasn't a product issue but a platform issue. Now, a lot of issues have been resolved.

The product's scalability in a containerized environment is notably advantageous. Scaling up or down is straightforward and highly flexible, responding directly to your company's requirements and the continuous environment it operates within. We can easily add up more machines or scale down when needed. In contrast, deploying it as a VM is a slow process.

A team of five developers works on integration within the Android and Firewall systems. Tracking the number of integrations created is not straightforward, but from initial checks, around 20 integration servers are established, handling various integration points or tasks.

Most of my interactions with customer service and support were related to infrastructure queries rather than platform-specific issues. Initially, when we began using the containerization approach, some hidden issues were inherent to this new method, which required support. While I would classify the support as something other than the best, they eventually resolve issues. Quick responses were typical for simpler queries, but resolution could take anywhere from a week to two weeks for more complex or bug-related issues. For these instances, they often needed to escalate the matter to their development team for a comprehensive solution.

Neutral

The cloud platform integration's complexity depends on the prior experience working with it. For a beginner, the process would take a lot of work. It is straightforward once one gets familiar with it.

In implementing IBM App Connect, multiple options are available, each with its complexity and steps. You can set it up on a single virtual machine, which is comparatively simpler. Next, deploying it within a Kubernetes environment or as a Docker container requires additional steps for configuration but provides more flexibility. The recommended approach is deploying in OpenShift, which offers advantages but might involve a more comprehensive setup process.

Utilizing pre-existing operators created by IBM significantly simplifies the setup, reducing complexity for implementation. Once set up, developers gain convenient access, enabling them to swiftly create the instances, possibly automating the process with minimal effort. This advantage makes the Kubernetes or OpenShift environment particularly favorable, offering scalability and ease of use for App Connect instances.

Various roles handle different aspects of IBM App Connect deployment and management in organizational settings. For instance, an integration specialist or administrator may focus on IBM App Connect's configuration and management, while developers require access to the environment for development. Additionally, some organizations might have specific roles dedicated to supporting production environments, restricting access accordingly. While in certain scenarios, one person might fulfill multiple roles; larger organizations tend to separate these responsibilities among different individuals or teams to maintain control, security, and proper governance over the deployment and usage of the product.

It is easy to maintain. When IBM releases a new version or features, upgrading to these updates via the new operator is relatively straightforward. It typically involves just a few clicks to upgrade to the latest version. While there are considerations and guidelines to follow during these updates, adhering to these steps makes the process simple and manageable. Overall, with proper adherence to guidelines and instructions, the maintenance, updates, and upgrades within Kubernetes environments are simple and can be handled efficiently.

The ROI for the platform at my current customer's site predominantly revolves around long-term usage and centralizing integrations. It proves beneficial in managing critical operations like banking. By avoiding issues from scattered integration points, the time taken to resolve problems has notably decreased, contributing to operational efficiency. However, quantifying the exact financial savings, particularly regarding reduced downtime or post-implementation updates, would require detailed analysis by someone well-versed in the financial aspects.

IBM App Connect is a part of Cloud Pak. Thus, it benefits us with the ease of integration of multiple components. We can overview the integration capabilities as well.

Those using IBM App Connect should opt for a containerized solution rather than a VPN-based one. Containerization offers greater flexibility and can resolve several issues compared to a more traditional VPN setup.

I rate it an eight out of ten.

I primarily use App Connect for ETL and managing files in batch operations.

App Connect's best feature is that it can be deployed in a container.

The setup time for App Connect could be improved.

I've been using App Connect for ten years and the latest version for about a year.

App Connect is stable.

I would rate App Connect's scalability eight out of ten.

We get good technical support from the local IBM, though there's less support for older versions.

The initial setup is fairly straightforward so long as you have experience with the product and know about containers, but it takes a long time to complete.

Initially, App Connect was quite expensive because the cost was based on the number of processors we used. However, it's now based on containers, which means we can be more specific about our consumption and get a better price.

I would give App Connect a rating of eight out of ten.

We strategically decided to move all companies' data change with third parties. We control the Enterprise Service Bus platform. We also decided to change over to advanced systems to centralized management since we have several applications. We wanted a single point from which we could exchange data.

The security is very good.

It offers excellent reliability.

There is a friendly interface for configuration, and integration is made easy.

It can scale.

The solution is stable and reliable. 

We have not used the solution for too long. I haven't noted any issues with the product so far. We're still discovering new features.

When we do a version upgrade of the system, the platform is kind of complicated. It would be ideal if it was easier to manage.

Sometimes we have issues with local support.

I've been using the solution for one year or so. 

I'd rate the stability nine out of ten. We've never had issues. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution is scalable. It's containerized. I'd rate the ability to scale eight or nine out of ten in terms of ease of expansion. 

We only have administrators directly dealing with the solution, as it's for systems, not people. Administrators work with it on a daily basis. 

We have not dealt with technical support as we haven't had any issues. 

We did previously use an open-source solution. We switched to ensure business continuity.

We were lucky in that we good advice from local companies, so it was pretty easy for us to implement the product. I would rate the ease of implementation to eight out of ten. Overall, it was a good experience for us.

We're still on-premises with the ability to go hybrid. 

The main deployment of the system or integration was straightforward. It was mainly implemented within two months, however, integration is a continuous process. With every new system or new function, we need to communicate that to the system. It's not possible to just lump everything together into one project. We're always renewing or installing or changing architecture. 

We did get some advice from a local company.

You need some time to realize an ROI. 

The pricing is moderate. I'd rate the solution five out of ten. The licensing model is not bad. It's flexible. In time, you can allocate your licensing according to your different needs. 

You need some competencies as the licensing can be a bit complex.  

We're customers and end-users. We're using the latest version of the solution. 

I'd advise others to look carefully at licensing. Since it is a bit complex, they need to make sure they have the right licensing in place. You need to understand what you need and expect so that it is helpful for your company.

Over, the solution is not bad. I'd rate the product eight out of ten. The product is okay. However, there are times when we struggle with local support.

This is an integration product. Some of our financial customers, banks, and financial institutions are using IBM App Connect for integration and their services.  We work with the banking clients' transaction processes included in their APIs. We work with payment transactions, cash flow, ATM services, ATM cards, and the Internet banking side.

When using IBM stacks, IBM App Connect is suitable and integrates well with other IBM products like WebSphere.  

There needs to be an IBM App Connect web console clustering feature. 

I have been using IBM App Connect for three years.

IBM App Connect is a stable product.  However, they need to be more user friendly.

IBM App Connect is scalable. From the administration side, they need to improve the RBAC model, as well as the clustering of this product.  It will be good if we can start up the cluster, via IBM Connect Console. Some other products like MuleSoft, are providing this type of administration. MuleSoft is easy to use and user friendly.

The licensing cost for IBM App Connect is very high.

This solution is used as the integration hub between the internal application of any enterprise.

The installation of containers could be simplified, as it currently requires a senior-level installer.

In the next release, I would like it to be integrated with lifecycle management.

I have been using IBM App Connect for 15 years.

We started working with version 2, but now we are using version 11, which is the newest version. 

It's a stable solution, we have not had any issues.

It's a scalable product. We have more than 20 users who are using this solution.

Technical support is good.

You can install both on the cloud and on-premises.

If you go with a container-based installation, it's more complex than a traditional installation.

We need only one person to deploy this solution.

The pricing could be better.

Licensing is on a yearly basis.

This is a cloud-based and Microsoft-based solution. It was called Message Broker previously.

We plan to continue implementing this product and I would recommend it to others.

I would rate IBM App Connect a ten out of ten.

We use it for the integration of applications in different scenarios.

• Comfortable integration
• Different type of interfaces that can integrate with companies.

It is very stable.

It takes two people to deploy and maintain the solution.

It is very expensive if we want to scale. Four nodes are using App Connect.

There are two people currently using the solution.

The technical support is very good.

We used IBM Integration Bus a very long time ago. We need the App Connect solution for its integration platform.

It is not easy to deploy. It requires someone with a high level of knowledge in the solution to deploy it, not just anyone can do it. 

It was very fast to deploy. It took one day.

Our implementation strategy was focused on CI/CD.

We did the deployment ourselves. We used an integration toolkit from IBM.

The solution is really good, but expensive.

We also looked at open source solutions.

We tried to start using other solutions in our projects, but found they were not simple to use. We are using App Connect because it's a more comprehensive solution that can handle many projects.

I would rate the solution as a nine (out of 10).