Azure API Management vs. webMethods.io Integration

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Azure API Management
Score 8.4 out of 10
N/A
Microsoft's Azure API Management supports creation of API.
$0.04
per 10,000 calls
webMethods.io Integration
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
webMethods.io Integration (formerly webMethods Integration Cloud) from Software AG is designed to make it easy to connect SaaS apps and make business processes more efficient. It enables enterprise subject matter experts and eliminates integration silos, allowing users to integrate applications hosted in public or private clouds, as well as applications hosted on premises.N/A
Pricing
Azure API ManagementwebMethods.io Integration
Editions & Modules
Consumption
0.042 per 10,000 calls
Lightweight and serverless version of API Management service, billed per execution
Developer
$48.04
per month Non-production use cases and evaluations
Basic
$147.17
per month Entry-level production use cases
Standard
$686.72
per month Medium-volume production use cases
Premium
$2,795.17
per month High-volume or enterprise production use cases
Isolated
TBA
per month Enterprise production use cases requiring high degree of isolation
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Azure API ManagementwebMethods.io Integration
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Azure API ManagementwebMethods.io Integration
Top Pros
Top Cons
Features
Azure API ManagementwebMethods.io Integration
API Management
Comparison of API Management features of Product A and Product B
Azure API Management
8.0
4 Ratings
2% below category average
webMethods.io Integration
-
Ratings
API access control8.94 Ratings00 Ratings
Rate limits and usage policies5.44 Ratings00 Ratings
API usage data8.94 Ratings00 Ratings
API user onboarding9.03 Ratings00 Ratings
API versioning8.94 Ratings00 Ratings
Usage billing and payments5.23 Ratings00 Ratings
API monitoring and logging9.84 Ratings00 Ratings
Cloud Data Integration
Comparison of Cloud Data Integration features of Product A and Product B
Azure API Management
-
Ratings
webMethods.io Integration
7.7
1 Ratings
6% below category average
Pre-built connectors00 Ratings8.01 Ratings
Connector modification00 Ratings9.01 Ratings
Support for real-time and batch integration00 Ratings8.01 Ratings
Data quality services00 Ratings7.01 Ratings
Data security features00 Ratings7.01 Ratings
Monitoring console00 Ratings7.01 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Azure API ManagementwebMethods.io Integration
Small Businesses
NGINX
NGINX
Score 9.0 out of 10
Make
Make
Score 9.2 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
NGINX
NGINX
Score 9.0 out of 10
Zapier
Zapier
Score 8.9 out of 10
Enterprises
NGINX
NGINX
Score 9.0 out of 10
SAP Integration Suite
SAP Integration Suite
Score 8.7 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Azure API ManagementwebMethods.io Integration
Likelihood to Recommend
8.0
(4 ratings)
9.0
(1 ratings)
User Testimonials
Azure API ManagementwebMethods.io Integration
Likelihood to Recommend
Microsoft
APIM is useful for the standard scenarios:
1) Securing your back-end APIs - If you have a legacy back-end web service that has a basic authentication scheme, you can add some additional security by placing APIM in front, and requiring subscription keys. Leverage your existing firewall to ensure only your APIM instance can communicate with your back-end API, and you've basically added a layer of protection.
2) Lift and shift - there are always going to be clients that don't want to update their clients to use a newer API; in some cases you can make a newer API look like an older one by implementing some complex policies in APIM. You can also do the opposite, making older APIs look new, such as making an XML back-end accept both JSON and XML.
3) Centralizing your APIs - if you've acquired another company and want to make their API set look as if it's a part of the larger whole, APIM is an easy way to provide a consistent front-end interface for developers.
Read full review
Software AG
We don't use webMethods.io Integration for scenarios where we need to integrate to on-premises legacy applications that have limited support for modern security controls such as OAuth 2.0 and transport encryption. Likewise, we don't use it for solutions that involve any of our systems that are controlled by safe-working processes. For those scenarios, of which we have many, we maintain on-premises webMethods Integration Server and Trading Networks instances to build and execute and support and monitor those solutions. This then requires us to hook our on-premises integration platform up to the webMethods.io Integration cloud, to ship messages between the two integration platforms. This all begs the question if a cloud solution cannot be used for all use cases or scenarios that the business has, then why add the complexity of using the cloud at all if you still need to maintain an on-premises solution to support the non-cloud appropriate scenarios.
Read full review
Pros
Microsoft
  • Easy commissioning of APIs.
  • Great policies to control access.
  • Easy mock services for testing.
Read full review
Software AG
  • Easy to use
  • Priced competitively
  • Supports robust and resilient integration solutions
Read full review
Cons
Microsoft
  • Lack of robustness is a bit of an issue. Several other providers offer more options and capabilities, but then, they are lacking in interface ease.
  • As with anything Azure, pricing is really hard to stay on top of. I always find that you really don’t know what you’re paying for until you get the bill. Having an excellent Azure Administrator can help resolve that.
  • Integrating with app services outside of Azure can be a challenge, or at least much more challenging than just using Azure App Services.
Read full review
Software AG
  • Complex logic is hard to understand in simple diagrammatic user interface
  • User interface too simplistic for solutions that are complicated or go against the grain
  • Runtime observability could be improved
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Microsoft
Azure APIM vs Amazon API Gateway:
1) Azure APIM was a complete package that included a developer portal.
2) We are very Microsoft centric - so the Microsoft product suite aligned very well with our business needs.
3) It was faster and easier to stand up Azure APIM for testing than it was for the Amazon API Gateway.
Read full review
Software AG
webMethods.io IntegrationDescriptionWe uses webMethods.io Integration to solve some of our application to applications and business to business integration needs. It is the Integration Platform as a Service solution that we use in a mix with our continued use of webMethods Integration Server and Trading Networks on-premises. For any solutions that meet the use cases that we deem an appropriate fit for running in the cloud, we build those solutions using webMethods.io Integration. More specifically, we use webMethods.io Integration to synchronize changes in one application or system, in another application or system, by shipping data mutations via integration messaging and API calls. We also use webMethods.io Integration to integrate with external organizations. Our trading partners and supply chain partners provide APIs that we consume, and vice versa, to notify each other of business process events as they occur in the respective organizations. Please provide some detailed examples of things that webMethods.io Integration (webMethods Integration Cloud) does particularly well. Easy to usePriced competitivelySupports robust and resilient integration solutions please provide some detailed examples of areas where webMethods.io Integration (webMethods Integration Cloud) has room for improvement. These could be features that are hard to use, missing functionality, or just things that you'd like to see done differently. Complex logic is hard to understand in a simple diagrammatic user interface too simplistic for solutions that are complicated or go against the gain runtime observability could be improved please describe some specific scenarios based on your experience where webMethods.io Integration (webMethods Integration Cloud) is well suited, and/or scenarios where it is less appropriate. We don't use webMethods.io Integration for scenarios where we need to integrate to on-premises legacy applications that have limited support for modern security controls such as OAuth 2.0 and transport encryption. Likewise, we don't use it for solutions that involve any of our systems that are controlled by safe-working processes. For those scenarios, of which we have many, we maintain on-premises webMethods Integration Server and Trading Networks instances to build and execute and support and monitor those solutions. This then requires us to hook our on-premises integration platform up to the webMethods.io Integration cloud, to ship messages between the two integration platforms. This all begs the question if a cloud solution cannot be used for all use cases or scenarios that the business has, then why add the complexity of using the cloud at all if you still need to maintain an on-premises solution to support the non-cloud appropriate scenarios. What positive or negative impact (i.e. Return on Investment or ROI) has webMethods.io Integration (webMethods Integration Cloud) had on your overall business objectives?webMethods.io Integration is a cost-effective approach to integration in isolationwebMethods.io Integration as a supplement to on-premises integration is pointless and redundant and just adds complexity to the environment and additional costswebMethods.io Integration is a tough sell for organizations using Microsoft Azure integration products such as Logic AppswebMethods.io Integration has a faster time to market where the use case means standard provided adapters can be used describe how webMethods.io Integration (webMethods Integration Cloud) stacks up against them and why you selected webMethods.io Integration (webMethods Integration Cloud). For any organization which is already using Software AG products on-premises, such as webMethods Integration Server and Trading Networks, or Universal Messaging, evaluating and using webMethods.io Integration is the path of least resistance. It will be incredibly easy for your webMethods team to get up to speed on how to use webMethods.io Integration, and start developing new solutions on it. However in my opinion you should only add cloud to your integration product portfolio if you believe you can move 100% of your integration needs to the cloud. Otherwise, you will need to maintain an on-premises integration solution anyway, which means you end up with a more complex IT landscape by adding cloud to supplement on-premises integration for little benefit in terms of cost, complexity, and resourcing requirements. For organizations that are not already a Software AG shop, you should evaluate webMethods.io Integration on its merits, however, it's usually the right decision to double down on your existing products and vendors if you have no big issues with the current state. This is to say that if you are a Microsoft shop then adding Azure cloud products to your portfolio is pretty much inevitable, and avoiding the complexity of multiple clouds should also be something organizations consider.
Read full review
Return on Investment
Microsoft
  • We can always think of positive ROI impact on business
  • It helps to easily facilitate the design, deployment, and maintenance of our APIs
Read full review
Software AG
  • webMethods.io Integration is a cost effective approach to integration in isolation
  • webMethods.io Integration as a supplement to on-premises integration is pointless and redundant and just adds complexity to the environment and additional costs
  • webMethods.io Integration is a tough sell for organizations using Microsoft Azure integration products such as Logic Apps
  • webMethods.io Integration has a faster time to market where the use case means standard provided adapters can be used
Read full review
ScreenShots