Cloud Elements (discontinued) vs. Mashery (now part of Boomi)

Cloud Elements shines when you want to offer multiple options to the user on a type of system, such as supporting integration to CRM and wanting to offer Dynamics, Salesforce, and HubSpot on equal footing. If you only have a single integration with a single system, using Cloud Elements adds an unnecessary layer of abstraction.

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

• The API itself is very robust and easy to use, being a standard REST interface, standard HTTP response codes, well-packaged error messages, etc.
• Their uptime is great! I think I've seen one (short) 5-minute' blip' the entire time we've been connected for any type of primary function.
• Their support is top notch, they respond quickly, and the team that works with you is communicative and knowledgable.

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

• The only thing I can think of that they could improve is the quality of the assets they produce in the go-to-market process. This is a huge value add service, but the quality of what was produced was lower than what we would have produced internally. We spent more time going back and forth on the assets than it would have taken us to build them from scratch.

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

Support has been good overall.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

At the time we found Cloud Elements we found no other option that had a Unified API for cloud storage providers.

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

• Not my area of expertise, but it made my job as an implementer much easier, especially after finishing the first integration.

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