Amazon API Gateway vs. Azure API Management

API GW is great for giving access to asynchronous operations that are fast and don't need to be online all the time. Lambda functions are the classic example. In the past, an operation that is called on via an HTTP endpoint would be implemented using a server-based solution. With high availability in place that would include a server or two and a load balancer. Over time this setup can be costly, especially if the service is not used at full capacity; cycles are wasted when the servers are sitting there waiting to respond. If the operation can be distilled down to a function, an API GW + Lambda solution could be put in place that performs the operation as needed only when requested. Comparing the low price point for API GW requests and Lambda CPU+Memory, the savings can be night and day over the server-based implementation.

Incentivized

The range of policies that enable the APIs to loosely couple it with security, rate limit, retry, etc. are good. We can easily tie authentication mechanisms to external and other internal services without having to modify the backend.

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

• Management of APIs
• Security of the API through Azure AD, AD B2C etc.
• Providing an outer layer through APIs

• I think there should be another way of enabling CORS. It basically creates OPTIONS for every endpoint, which makes your API Gateway look complicated.
• The integration timeout limit is 30 seconds, which limits you into that time.
• API Gateway UI should be improved and should work correctly when more than two people are adding/editing endpoints.

Incentivized

• Cost - the upfront cost is a bit restrictive. I've been told it is because there are a few underlying VMs that are running this service. So if you're just starting out with API management, it can be an expensive proposition. Value increases as you add additional APIs. If you're using Azure B2C for the developer portal, you'll require Standard or Premium since they support AAD integration.
• Security granularity - at time of writing, APIM doesn't support breaking out operations to products. For example, if you have an API that has a GET and a POST operation, and you want the POST operation to require a different subscription. There is a work around, but it makes management a bit messy.
• Developer and Publisher portal - it's a little weird. Microsoft hasn't migrated all the publisher portal functionality into the "native" Azure portal. So some of it feels a little weird - especially when working with the content management side of things for the developer portal.
• Scaling - while it's easy to scale up, the cost of APIM ramps up very quickly. Standard -> Premium is a 4x jump.

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

Pricing is better at Amazon API gateway. Amazon API gateway is more user-friendly than SAP HANA Cloud. But SAP HANA Cloud supports more programming languages. The centralized management and monitoring system of Amazon API Gateway is more user-friendly. The User-Interface of Amazon API gateway is also better. Overall we can conclude that Amazon API Gateway provides a better work experience than SAP HANA.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

• Positive, which accelerated business deliveries in months
• Negative, but in our positive case, if you are going to change the solution in the future, you need to adjust several things for the new solution.
• Positive, users celebrated with ease of use (lower learning curve, lower cost).
• Positive - Pay according to usage

Incentivized

• It’s really pay as you go, so it's not that costly to get in and try it out. There’s no expensive client to buy and manage, but you do need to stay on top of the rapidly changing Azure environment to be sure you upgrade or adjust when needed.
• It’s not great having more than one API tool, but it’s ok to spread out your work, as you always want the right tool for the right job. For example, if you are a Salesforce-heavy organization, I’d go with Mule over Azure.
• It was easy getting an external consultant access to the tool to build their own API for a project they were working on for us.

Incentivized