IBM Cloud Functions vs. Okta Workflows (Azuqua)

IBM Cloud Functions [is] not the worse product on the IBM cloud. I decided to write this review as I thought it would be balanced. I would still use functions to set up a serverless architecture where execution time is pretty quick and the code is relatively simple. I wouldn't use IBM Cloud Functions for async calls obviously, as costs could be higher. The functions documentation is lacking in terms of CI/CD, and there are unexplainable errors occurring - like the network connection that I mentioned. So I wouldn't just rely on IBM Cloud Functions too much for the entire system, but make sure it's diversified.

Azuqua is well suited to connect data based systems or to add an extra level of automation to Smartsheet without requiring the control center. It is also well suited for people who don't have in depth understandings of programming. The UI is mostly visual with click and drag systems instead of requiring manually entered variables.

Incentivized

• Great substitute for a simple API calls to run non-complicated code.
• Easy way to run Python/Java/Javascript to get something done.
• File validation.

Incentivized

• The concept of reduced code to simplify use by less technical teams lowers the barriers to integration and allows teams to collaborate with ideas and concepts much easier
• The ability to review simply any error cases simplifies the old approaches of debugging and reviewing large and complex logs
• While not strictly part of the platform the support team's efforts to assist, to help clarify issues and then (where necessary) to resolve bugs was a large benefit and a key driver to extend the platform's footprint.

Incentivized

• Billing can be a hassle, not the most responsive customer service/support team
• Handles & executes most functionalities, but other platforms offer more scalability if you're seeking consistent and stable growth

Incentivized

• The lack of connection/card documentation. Every card does have a section with details, but they are sometimes lacking.
• The help center and community also need some structuring work. Every single connection/app should have a section with detailed documentation regarding its triggers and actions.
• The FLO history section needs to be more refined. It sometimes does not load and choosing the date doesn't actually show execution results from that particular day.

Incentivized

• ICF is a lightweight service and does not require runtime configurations
• Scalable on demand and hence there is no need to pay for runtime costs

Incentivized

I had to use the Automate tool for funneling image assets in bulk (tens of thousands) from FTPs into various destinations on an eCommerce platform. The user interface was quite harsh in comparison to Azuqua. Far more text/code line driven.

Incentivized

• It directly affected our expenses since we do not need to deploy and maintain a set of separate applications.
• It allowed us to pay for only the amount of time cloud functions run.
• It saved on maintenance and monitoring of the applications it replaced.

Incentivized

• It is very good to maintain customers updated.
• It is good so we can not delay on our responses, and customers keep confidence in us.
• We are able to work multiple persons on a single case without having dificulties on finishing the tasks.

Incentivized