Ambassador vs Apigee: What are the differences?

Introduction:

In the realm of API management, there are various solutions available to aid in the management, security, and analytics of APIs. Two popular options are Ambassador and Apigee. While both serve the purpose of API management, they differ in a few key aspects. In this article, we will explore the six main differences between Ambassador and Apigee.

1. Scalability:

When it comes to scalability, Ambassador and Apigee have distinct approaches. Ambassador is known for its lightweight and highly scalable architecture. It is designed to provide high performance even in high-traffic scenarios, making it suitable for microservices-based architectures. On the other hand, Apigee offers a robust and scalable solution, but it may require a bit more configuration and infrastructure for optimal scalability.

2. Deployment Model:

Another significant difference between Ambassador and Apigee lies in their deployment models. Ambassador is primarily designed to be deployed as a Kubernetes-native solution, leveraging the power of containerization and orchestration. This makes it an ideal choice for organizations embracing a cloud-native approach. Apigee, on the other hand, can be deployed on various platforms, including on-premises, cloud, or hybrid environments, providing flexibility in deployment options.

3. Customization and Extensibility:

When it comes to customization and extensibility, Ambassador and Apigee have distinct approaches. Ambassador follows the concept of an "API gateway as a library." It provides a more code-centric approach where developers have fine-grained control over customization and extension through writing code. Apigee, on the other hand, offers a user-friendly graphical interface that allows customization and extension through a low-code or no-code approach, making it accessible to a broader range of users, including business stakeholders.

4. Pricing and Licensing:

Pricing and licensing models are also key differences between Ambassador and Apigee. Ambassador follows an open-source model, offering a free version along with a paid enterprise edition that includes additional features and support. Apigee, on the other hand, is a commercial product with a subscription-based licensing model. Pricing is typically based on factors such as the number of API calls, the number of developers, and the level of support required.

5. Analytics and Insights:

When it comes to analytics and insights, both Ambassador and Apigee offer powerful features, but with some differences. Ambassador provides basic analytics out of the box, including request/response logs and traffic statistics. It also allows integration with external analytics tools. Apigee, on the other hand, offers comprehensive analytics capabilities, including real-time analytics, predictive analytics, and developer engagement metrics. It provides a rich set of dashboards and reports for monitoring and analysis.

6. Community and Support:

Lastly, the availability of community support and professional support services differs between Ambassador and Apigee. Ambassador has a vibrant open-source community and active contributors, providing a collaborative environment for sharing knowledge and addressing issues. Professional support services, including technical support and training, are available for the enterprise edition. Apigee also has a community forum and offers professional support services, including technical support, training, and consulting, providing a comprehensive support ecosystem.

In summary, Ambassador and Apigee differ in terms of scalability, deployment model, customization and extensibility, pricing and licensing, analytics and insights, and community and support. These differences should be taken into consideration while selecting an API management solution based on specific requirements and preferences.