Akamai API Gateway vs. Boomi

It is really helpful for managing [the] scaling of systems with need and utilizing resources when needed. Also, DevOps support for deployment plans is quite useful when deploying applications. Monitoring systems with graphQL and utilizing them in APIs is quite helpful when used in Microservices systems to identify system capabilities and user utilization of applications.

Incentivized

Dell Boomi is well-suited as a middleware to talk between systems. I am a personal fan of Dell's products and I enjoy this service. Dell Boomi is very easy to use, even to the less technically-inclined user. It is less appropriate to use in one system alone, but users would still find it functional in one system alone because it helps manage the system's metadata and allows that system to be integrated with other systems in the future.

Incentivized

• Graphically representation in GraphQL
• Scaling system
• DevOps management

Incentivized

• Pre-built connectors to almost anything which greatly reduce time to release of your integration needs.
• Easy to use development platform with drag&drop features. Non-technical people could build simple integration processes in no time.
• Great user community where you can get quick help if needed. Boomi people hang around there a lot.

Incentivized

• Quota enforcement can be simplified
• Caching mechanism for API with akamai can be improved
• Gateway configuration can be simplified as details are not much elaborate

Incentivized

• More from a development perspective. It is always difficult to use the properties features. It takes a while to understand how the data/variables can be used across an integration.
• Dell Boomi should also invest more on API Management and not just seen as a ETL,ESB tool.
• Should roll out features more often based on users reviews.

Incentivized

Dell Boomi has provided us with the ability to connect our campus together using our various existing platforms. There are many supported features and have yet to run into something that we cannot do. Its user interface is very intuitive which would allow users to begin developing fairly easily. There is a myriad of resources available

Incentivized

First of all, as a service (cloud service), we don't need to care about server maintenance any more, no worries about incorrect configurations, about down time. Second, for maintaining, we don't need a large team to do it. And of course, using Dell Boomi instead of manual transaction could help us to avoid people mistake while inputting data or doing transactions.

Incentivized

I would rate Dell Boomi as highly performant. We have used it for 4+ years and have not had any major issues with availability or speed. We also have not observed performance degradation when connecting it with other software solutions.

Incentivized

Boomi support was responsive and knowledgable, however being a closed cloud service, it doesn't have good community support. We found the learning curve to be steep and there aren't avenues like google, forums, or blogs that provide community driven insight into the product or how to go about designing solutions using the tool

Incentivized

Akamai [API Gateway] helps better in terms of representation of graphQL and its consumption in monitoring system making a package for deployment speed with monitoring and scaling application with all services and utilizing most of a system without much knowledge of other aspects. Also, [a] user-friendly system helps people to handle [the] system with necessary options

Incentivized

MuleSoft and Boomi are built on totally different frameworks. Mulesoft is an API-led network whereas Boomi is an ETL middleware approach. In easy words, Mulesoft can connect to several apps and business units, can create and reuse multiple components. Boomi offers only on-premise and on-cloud integration solutions whereas MuleSoft is capable of providing on-premise, on-cloud as well as hybrid solutions. We can say that MuleSoft is much more flexible and offers multiple integration solutions.

• Decrease in time required for deployment and monitoring by significant amount causing less support resources needed
• Scaling applications on month-end at high usage time has reduced TAT time for issues and no of issues occurring
• Quota enforcement has allowed [managing] multiple systems and their needs in respective stakeholders hands and reduced infra teams involvement in [the] management of reoccurring problems

Incentivized

• ROI was flat. Coding directly in apps we were knowledgable in would have been faster, but maintenance higher.
• It brought good process to the integration team that was new, however I wouldn't say it was a huge gain monetarily. It is a valid path out of many paths for integration, but doesn't rule them all.

Incentivized