SAP Integration Suite vs. WSO2 API Manager

Good at: 1. Integrations with in SAP applications, especially with event based triggers 2. Can be integrated very well with other BTP services to attain Batch processing and store credentials 3. Supports many authentication models Improvements: 1. No version history available compared to as it is available in S4HANA 2. Need a lot of improvement in git hub connections

Incentivized

It's free! No argument can win a fight with that! And it's the only reason I gave it a 5. If you have no money to spend, and a simple environment you'll have a nice product. But free does come with a price. After 5 years we're still struggling with ports, and analytics (it just won't work without any errors caused by some configuration somewhere). An API Manager should work out of the box. The only configuration expertise that any developer wants to invest in, is the configuration of API's. Not the product itself... Anyone who've seen the training material, just for installing this thing will agree that this is not the way to go. Of all the API Managers out there (we've tried 4), WSO2 is the only one were you need to know how this dragon of a java application works internally. Did I already mention the humongous amount of config files?

Incentivized

• The extensive catalog of pre package integrations that have in the discovery center. That allows developers to find solutions that can fit the needs.
• Monitor of the integrations and api deployed.
• API management has been for us a very usefull tool inside integration suite, to be able to have the API Hub with the documentation of our apis.

Incentivized

• Authentication based on OAuth 2.0 and HTTP Basic Authentication.
• Rate Limiting applied at different levels like Subscriber, API, Resource and Backend.
• Monitoring by exporting the metrics in Prometheus and traces in Jaeger.
• Mediation to perform transformation, orchestration etc.

Incentivized

• Provide more pre-built integrations to use within SuccessFactors or other modules instead of everything having to be custom built
• Support is unable to provide advice on custom builds so you often have to engage a 3rd party partner
• Works best when you have the functional and technical teams working together. Otherwise, the system is too technical for a functional user to create integration and a technical user not always understand the functional perspective

Incentivized

• Better QA testing prior to releases rollout
• Better support needed

Incentivized

It is in place, our system integrators are familiar with it, and it fits into the ecosystem. A better user interface, flow build and debugging experience would see it grow, many technical staff do not enjoy using it for this reason, however it is quite capable and powerful behind this one shortcoming.

Incentivized

The user interface is messy and not intuitive. It has a steep learning curve, and flows developed around are easy to make a mess with layout and can be difficult to follow. The debugging is also quite difficult, it takes some time to figure out how to follow the flow and examine data. Error handling is also difficult and not intuitive, it is better to let some errors leak and monitor through ALM.

Incentivized

The support for SAP Integration Suite is satisfactory. We leverage SAP support through our manage services partner. So far, we have not had many major issues. One concern, to make our rating a ten, would be turnaround time on high priority incidents. SAP Integration Suite drives our key business functions forward. Without a reasonable service level agreement on turnaround, we sometimes find us running into issues running pay, etc.

Incentivized

Work with an SAP implementation partner, if possible.

Incentivized

Before deploying SAP Integration Suite, we assessed Oracle Financial Services Analytics and IBM Risk Analytics. While Oracle had proved its mettle in the exceptional database support and IBM in presenting risk model tools, SAP Integration Suite overwhelmed others by being effortlessly integrated with our existing banking framework.

Providing better capabilities comparing the overall API lifecycle management, especially the availability of API Integration layer and a strong identity layer of their own which provides an end-to-end API ecosystem that would be advantageous in terms of a large software development initiative.

Incentivized

• Positive impact would be availability of pre-defined integration content via templates.
• One can re-use a template as a starting point to modify and adopt to client-specific integration flow.
• Availability of adaptors and connectors, making it easier to piece together the integration flow.

Incentivized

• We've moved away from legacy SOAP services where nobody knew what services was used by who. WSO2 eliminated at least 90% of time spend on any service.
• Creating API's (or actually creating the API Management layer...) is so simple that new developers can get away with it in no time. Again, real time gainer.
• Since creating API's is so simple, developers are very fast in adopting a kind of "Domain thinking". In comparison with Azure API Manager: Azure does not demand knowledge of "how" the product works, but it's definitely more difficult to get an API up and running in Azure. And for some reason, azure does not promote clean domain driven architecture. Domain Driven architecture is the greatest time saver strategy possible. And WSO2 fits nicely in there.

Incentivized