Microsoft Azure API Management Reviews

We have a couple of use cases for this  product. It's fully cloud-native and can handle telco distribution for end-to-end distribution management. Five or six years ago, we made a  fantastic product with microservices. I was responsible for rolling it out for a large telco in Qatar. They had no distribution or end-to-end visibility or platform. So we helped them to move to a cloud platform for their entire distribution and operation. The beauty of that product is when you look at the telco distribution standpoint your maybe five or ten thousand merchant ecosystem will be connected to that platform. It helps with generating several transactions in a minute or second. And it gives that kind of scalability in the back end. 

The other use case was for banking transactions. If you have your core banking platform that is legacy, if a user wants to bring in a lot of additional alternatives, they need to have some kind of a platform for enhancements. We made a cloud to bring some kind of their operations to the cloud. We made a transaction platform for them so that their merchants could access transactions.

The API management is very good. You have sophisticated dashboards that help you to understand what's really going on - in addition to whatever security layer that you can bring on top of that. It is easy to manage front and backend APIs.

You can put on your own security layer so that you know only the authorized people are accessing your back-end systems through the gateway. In addition to that, you have sophisticated dashboards and reporting for storage logs or logging. That is quite useful, specifically in the banking sector. 

You can limit items by parameters such as geography or private VPMs. 

You have different pricing tiers and pricing is based depending on the traffic. You can go to basic pricing if you like. Depending on your traffic, you have licensing options.

Microsoft manages everything so you can focus on building applications and deploying them.

The platform components are quite interesting. 

I'm not sure if there are certain areas needed for improvement. I haven't explored its shortcomings. So far, the requirements have been met.

Maybe the customization could be a bit better. 

My team found difficulty in migrating APIs from one platform to this platform. We could export and import properly. We made a complete API for a UAT environment, and when we moved the APIs, we ran into issues. 

They don't have a standard local IP. They only have a public IP.

I've used the solution for six to eight years or so. 

I'd rate the stability eight out of ten. It is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution scales well. I'd rate it ten out of ten. It's easy to expand as needed. 

We have both medium-sized and enterprise-level customers. 

Technical support has been fine. We are happy with their level of support. 

I have worked with other competing products, such as Apigee and AWS.

The initial setup is very straightforward and simple. I'd rate the ease of deployment eight out of ten.

The provisioning takes a couple of minutes. Then you need to do some programming. 

The pricing is reasonable. I'd rate the cost in terms of affordability seven out of ten. 

The premium tier is too expensive for medium-sized organizations. However, the local IP only is offered at the premium tier. 

I did not compare this solution to others since I was promoting Microsoft at the time. 

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. 

People should explore API management. You do get full control of your API, and from a security standpoint, you have a good understanding of the touchpoints and far more control of your traffic. You know who is accessing your services. Even if a company has legacy systems, it should have an API gateway in front of its legacy systems.

We went with Microsoft since we were Microsoft partners.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

We use the solution to manage the APIs of the legacy app in on-premises systems at our organization. We use the solution for security purposes. It lets us put restrictions on who can consume the APIs. Also, we can keep a check on the dashboard for requests and the health of the APIs.

We are using Azure API Management as a platform. We have a ServiceNow instance. We connect it to the internet to have an internal connection network through on-premises systems. Here, we need to expose our APIs to security. So we take the help of Azure API Management for security purposes. Also, we can use dashboards to get information about API requests.

The solution's most valuable feature is the ability to create policies. You can customize the business and security rules directly with it instead of creating new systems for managing the same. With this policy, you can develop anything with them.

It is a good solution. The latest versions of Azure API Management have included many new features. At the moment, our APIs don't follow the RESTful concepts. So, we face a challenge at the initial stage of the project. We need to get cache policy requests. We have to develop rules internally for cache requests with the policy methods. So many other companies must be needing this feature. They should work on it in Azure API Management's following versions. 

We have been using the solution for four years now.

It is a stable solution, but updates don't work.

We have more than 400 developers and more than 1,000,000 consumers using this tool.

We have a technical consultant. Microsoft support is excellent. They offer a good support solution.

I didn't know about any other API Management solution before, but I had read about the Apigee from Google. Azure is better as it's easier to use and has more features than Google.

It takes work. One needs to learn about this tool, the policies, and how to work with them.

We have consulting companies that help us. The API Management is simple to deploy. We have instances for the production, developer, and staging environments. We have three instances, and the APIs also come with ARM templates. We have a central repository of Azure. Creating a new instance takes a long time, but implementing a new API is faster.

The solution comes with a standard license. Its price is one of its drawbacks. Some costs need to be more affordable for us. Frankly, Azure is our most expensive resource; it's costly.

The solution is very easy to maintain. With it, we can integrate all other products and easily manage them. We have all the interactions in the same cloud.

In API Management, we have segmented consumers' APIs and secrets' APIs. We have global secrets and patents. It is easy to use after you learn and research about the tool. So, one must learn about this tool before implementing it or have a consultant to help with the initial feedback and organizing API products.

I would like to rate the solution as an eight as the price is not low, and it becomes difficult to afford it. It's easy to use, but it could have been easier.

We use the platform to configure API connectors with authentication and generate reports. We utilize it within a private cloud environment as part of our system integration services, providing these services to other users.

The solution has significantly improved our organization by providing a user-friendly and easy-to-deploy API management system.

The platform's most valuable features are its rule-based permissions and comprehensive API lifecycle management capabilities.

The solution's deployment process could be slightly improved in terms of time. Additionally, they should enhance AI capabilities and more advanced integration features with other platforms.

I have been using Microsoft Azure API Management for six years.

The product is stable. We haven't encountered any stability-related issues. 

The product is scalable. 

We have used different solutions in the past.

The initial setup was straightforward and user-friendly.

We implemented the product with the help of our in-house team. 

We have seen significant financial benefits after using the product. Moving to the cloud offers many advantages.

The product pricing is reasonable. 

We evaluated other options, including solutions from AWS and Google Cloud. However, Microsoft Azure API Management stood out for its feature set and easy integration with our existing infrastructure.

We use the platform for all acquisitions and system management, automating various processes. Our API server is integrated into our cloud system ensuring everything is documented in a single query.

I rate it a ten out of ten. 

It is easy to use. 

They need to work on the third party integrations. 

I have experience with Microsoft Azure API Management. 

The technical support team is good. 

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. 

Microsoft is competitively priced. 

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

It's a very robust tool. There is a developer portal that can be used by developers, vendors and other external partners to create keys and manage their APIs. 

Enables you to configure the policies and modify the behavior of the APIs.

VNet integration facility is only available in the premium version so that is a drawback.

I have been using Microsoft Azure API Management for six to seven years.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution. The size of the clients depends mostly on the type of solution they are using. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

The technical support team is easily approachable

Positive

The initial setup is easy. It takes a lot of time to deploy it. They are coming out with a feature that is supposed to shorten how long it takes.

Microsoft Azure is an expensive solution not for the large enterprises but for medium and small.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

There were legacy APIs running on-premises, and we wanted a modernized layer without disturbing the existing legacy layer. Microsoft Azure API management helps with that. We can wrap the modernized API layer. The modernized API layer can perform rate-limiting, monitoring, throttling, aggregating, and other boilerplate functions without disturbing the backend business logic.

I like that security features can be integrated with API Management. I also like that you can perform rate-limiting and throttling functions.

You can host multiple API gateways in different locations. If one goes down, then another will take over. Microsoft Azure API Management is good in terms of nonfunctional requirements.

The documentation is neat and organized, and as a result, we rarely have the need to contact technical support. 

Microsoft Azure API Management is lagging behind Apigee and should also have a better CICD process.

I used it for six months.

It's a stable solution.

Because it is on Microsoft Azure, we don't have to worry about scalability. I would give scalability a rating of ten out of ten.

Technical support is very poor and needs a lot of improvement. The process is not straightforward, and they are hard to reach.

Because it is a cloud solution, the initial setup is straightforward.

It is an expensive solution, but any API solution will be expensive.

Overall, I would rate Microsoft Azure API Management at nine on a scale from one to ten.

The main use case is if you want to be exposed to an external endpoint. We use it for access. It can only be used by Azure API.

If I want to expose API endpoints to clients, we use this solution. 

The API management is great. It comes out of the box ready to go and comes with policies. 

It is stable.

Technical support is good.

We have witnessed an ROI.

We have to put the logs in Datadog. We need to use some other product to do all of the things we want. That costs extra. However, there are other solutions, like Dynatrace, that offer more features and have more functionalities. Right now, we have to use logic apps. You need more third-party apps to fill in the gaps. 

If I want to connect to other apps to Saleforce or Snowflake, et cetera, I need a quicker way to do mapping and to integrate everything together. 

I need to have microservice access. 

I'd like to have better flexibility and more capabilities. 

I've been using the solution for three to four years. 

I'd rate the stability seven or eight out of ten. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. 

We do not scale the solution. We don't need multi-tenancy or anything like that. Our understanding is that if we did need to scale it would cost more. 

Technical support is very good and is available around the clock. 

Positive

I'm familiar with a variety of other solutions, including Mulesoft.

I have witnessed an ROI while using the solution. 

The pricing is expensive, however, it does offer great value. I'd rate the solution seven or eight out of ten in terms of value for money.

I'm not sure which version of the solution I'm using. 

The product covers all of the basic needs you will need. If you need more robust options, Mulesoft might be a good option. However, this is a pretty good tool

I'd rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Our company uses the solution for API orchestration and UI management. We currently have 50,000 users. 

The UI management is very easy to use. 

The solution provides good management of API orchestrations. 

Technical support is very good and moves very fast. 

The API gateway can be very complex. We had difficulty managing end users for a very, very complex project. 

I am not sure that another API gateway would have better handled this difficult project. 

I have been using the solution for four years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

We have a partnership with Microsoft. Their support is very good and moves very fast. They are available to us in a maximum of ten to twenty minutes. 

The setup is very easy and doesn't take long. 

We implemented the solution in-house. 

I also use WSO2 and Kong. Of all the options, Kong is my preference because it is easier to use. 

The solution's support is very good. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

In general, we use it for the front application, like the mobile banking application or some other service stuff. We found that it's easier to maintain these internet connections and so on, on the cloud.

In general, we started with Microsoft Azure Cloud as we needed a close integration with our internal or Office solution. In case of Microsoft, Azure Active Directory is easily integrated within the Microsoft platform, including Office. In particular, in API Management, used as front-end APIs, it's easy to manage. Now, we are looking ahead to the hosted solution, which is very nice. 

We use Microsoft due to the stability of the company. 

It's efficient enough and it's just enough for our needs to manage rules and so aforth for API management. We use it due to Microsoft's reputation. We need a stable provider. We cannot play with some providers. 

It is easy to set up. 

The solution is scalable. It is stable as a product as well. 

It's okay. It's not as good as Google. For instance, in Apigee, in Google.

One of the most important improvements for us would be if it supported the HTTP/3 version and new protocol over a quick connection. It's a relatively new standard since 2020. 

I've used the solution for about three years. 

It is a stable product. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash. The performance is good. 

While it is scalable, there is some costs involved with expanding. 

We have about 100 people using the solution at the company in terms of deployment. In terms of clients using the solution, that's in the millions. 

We have a premium subscription. We have a local company, a local Microsoft office. We do not have a problem with the support from Microsoft.

We used a CA solution before, and CA was sold to Broadcom and everything changed, politics and so and so. We had to disable CA platform due to the provider. We believe the same issues will not happen to Microsoft.

The initial setup is very easy. It's not complex at all. 

There is a special group that is  responsible for the support and implementation of the platform.

I'm aware of Google, or Apigee, and it's quite a robust product. 

We are a customer and end-user.

It is a subscription service. It's definitely not on-premises in our organization. We do have our core system on-premises, of course.

I would recommend the solution. People have to first understand the different types of subscriptions, however. There are four of them, developer, and intermediates, and then premium, and it's costly. That said, it's not that expensive. It's a very technical piece of software. I can say it's stable and it satisfies our needs. It's just a bit complex. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

There's a customer who wanted to migrate their API from their on-prem environment to Azure. They're looking at utilizing Azure API to manage all their other APIs. We just started with migrating one of their APIs. They're still working with it, still trying to learn the difference between what they had for on-prem and Azure. We are in the process of actually migrating a lot of their APIs.

Access control is the most valuable aspect. It's the main reason really why a lot of clients are moving - as we are able to deploy multiple APIs and be able to also segregate who's got access to which API, who's got access to the other API. That centralized management is what the customer is really looking for.

The initial setup was okay.

The solution isn't missing anything. For the use case that we have right now, it's perfect. It offers everything that you'd look for in an API Management solution.

There's a new developer portal that's been added before they rolled out the new updates. I haven't really checked it out, however, the developer portal that they introduced is better than before. They've really improved on that one. If you are using the old portal, it's not as good. 

We have two different customers. The other customer wants us to move completely, to migrate their APIs to Azure. The other one wants to manage their APIs, which are running on-prem. I've explored that in the flexibility, in terms of integration with an on-prem environment. The integration could be improved for those on-prem use cases. 

The integration with other API gateways is where they might try to improve.

Support could be better. 

I started using the solution six months ago.

In terms of stability, I have seen that it is packaged into four different plans. If I'm not mistaken, there should be basic, standard, conception, and developer. I wanted to try to avoid deploying a lot of units, it uses a concept of compute units or scaling units. I was using the conception tier, which is not designed to be highly available. I was testing features, I didn't mind the level of availability. I suspect that if you choose the high-end SQL, it's most likely to be available. However, in terms of cost, I'm yet to find that out.

If you compare the SQL, and that's one that really supports scalability across regions, it's good. It's very scalable.

We have ten developers using the solution right now. 

We do plan to increase usage. 

Microsoft is huge, and when it comes to support, it's not so great as compared to, if you have something software specific. Whenever you ask them a question, they assume you to know everything. It's challenging to get the level of support that you'd want.

Neutral

We used to use Kong. 

Kong is more of an on-prem API gateway, and this one is cloud-based. And given that many customers are migrating to the cloud, it was actually one of the reasons why we're convincing the customers that we have used their APIs to migrate to the cloud. 

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. 

I have a basic understanding of the API fundamentals. Those were what I was looking for; that's what I was looking for first, just to see if my understanding of the fundamentals. With my level of knowledge, it was fine. 

For someone with basic knowledge, you can deploy the solution within a week. 

There is some maintenance needed. However, that person is supposed to be someone who's more DevOps inclined.

We handled the initial setup in-house. 

I've been using the conception tier. If you choose the lower-end tiers, it'll be fine, cost-wise. However, those tiers are just for development purposes; they're not really for the production environment. I would suspect if you move onto the higher tiers, it'll be pretty pricey.

I was looking into Azure API Management and the equivalent and in AWS.

I wanted to compare the functionality between Azure API Management and Amazon API Gateway, as there's a customer that wants AWS API Gateway instead of Azure. I just wanted to see if the features are similar. I'm looking into that now. 

We're a Microsoft partner. 

The role that I have right now is a role where I'm a deployment engineer for cloud services, so depending on what the customer wants, someone's migrating from their on-prem, from VMware, the Linux, the Hyper-V to Azure, someone has to design highly available solutions, like applications that are tiered, that is three-tiered or two-tiered. Some want to utilize API Management. With API Management, we don't have a lot of customers on that front, as they sort of don't understand how it works. Right now, it's an area where we've worked with two of our biggest customers that have got multiple APIs on their on-prem environment. I've got basic experience, especially on what an API is and the benefits of Azure API Management as compared to what they have.

We're using the latest version of the product.

We are completely moving our customers from their on-prem APIs. It's a complete cloud solution; they don't want any hybrid solution.

I'd rate the solution six out of ten based on the level of knowledge I have. The learning curve is pretty high. It's API Management and it also supports API gateways. It didn't decentralize those features, so the learning curve that's there for someone is a bit much.

I would recommend the solution to others.