Amazon API Gateway vs. Mashery (now part of Boomi)

Experienced a lack of available programming languages while working on a minor project. I had to halt the project and wait for it to be added later. It took ages and had a hit on our productivity. It has a centralized management system which helps and an easy interface which helps to manage multiple tasks in case of large-scale operations and projects.

Incentivized

Mashery is great when it comes to deployment to your own datacenter and when it comes to managing third party API's like Salesforce using Mashery Cloud version. I would be a little bit more careful when deploying it on Kubernetes as it was not designed for it. New version 5 is re-architected to run more on natively on Kubernetes, but we have not tested it yet.

Incentivized

• API Gateway integrates well with AWS Lambda. This allows us to build a web server in the language and framework of our choice, deploy it as a Lambda function, and expose it through API Gateway.
• API Gateway manages API keys. Building rate limiting and request quota features are not trivial (or interesting).
• API Gateway's pricing can be very attractive for services that are accessed infrequently.

Incentivized

• Easy integration of the TIBCO Cloud Mashery developer portal allows simple onboarding and user and application management.
• Configuration of TIBCO Cloud Mashery is both flexible and focused to address the main tasks for an API Management solution.
• The built-in OAuth Token capabilities provide a quick start to properly manage application access.

Incentivized

• Client certificates are troublesome when trying to attach them to API GW stages.
• Debugging across several services can be difficult when API GW is integrated with Route 53 and another service like Lambda or EC2/ELB.
• Creating internal/private APIs, particularly with custom domains, can be unintuitive.

Incentivized

• The "Control Center" admin dashboard is not performant. We have a lot of configuration data in Mashery (many endpoints, many plans, many users, many keys, etc.) and the website struggles with the volume of data it has to deal with.
• Their systems have limitations that make it more difficult for us to operate the way we would like. For example, there is a limit to the number of API Definitions we can create, as well as a limit to the number of Endpoints we can define in a Plan.
• Their support organization leaves a lot to be desired. Responses are slow, and when they do come they are often inadequate. We have to re-phrase the question to get them to answer it differently, or we have to repeatedly follow up to ask for additional clarifying information.

Incentivized

Ease of use.

Incentivized

i find some of the package adding and key are complex . UI experience is bad . Every step need front and backward navigation too much. It would be better if endpoint itself contain package and key addiction option

Incentivized

We always had a great experience with the AWS support team. They were always on time and very dependable. It was a good partnership while we worked to resolve our issues.

Incentivized

Support has been good overall.

Incentivized

Initially it was difficult to understand . after few day , it was easy

Incentivized

When we tested Azure API Management at the time, it had serious connectivity issues, it was very unstable, and it needed to do a lot using the command line. Comparing with the AWS solution, which was more mature, and the fact that we have services in use on AWS, we ended up choosing to continue using AWS products. This so as not to run the risk of increasing latency in accesses, and of some functionality not working, due to being developed yet.

Incentivized

I've really only looked at Mashery since it has been around a very long time and has a rich feature set. I do know our platform teams are looking into AWS gateway but not sure this product has everything we need.

Incentivized

• ROI is negative, you need either to hire them to work with you or spend days/weeks to figure out issues.
• For some of the projects in the end it is not worth it, it is just a "buzz" to use serverless but not practical.
• Service is easy to set up authorization and it is easy to manage.

Incentivized

• As a API Mediation layer it has helped with the troublesome port setup with internal and external clients. Meaning it made that easy to the client that they know where to go for access to an API.
• The interactive documentation is very well put together and has reduced the time that developers have to go back and forth with each other to figure how to call the API.

Incentivized