Endgrate API Review Catalog

by Endgrate Team 2023-07-26

At Endgrate, we're engineers at heart. As is well-known in the software industry, with great power comes great responsibility to complain about integrations (well, not all of them). Not all integration providers are the same - every integration provider we work on is subject to our engineers' brutally honest reviews.

The integration provider rating score is calculated by taking into account several crucial factors that directly impact the quality, usability, and reliability of an API. The ultimate goal of these reviews is to help developers make informed decisions about which APIs to adopt in their projects and provide constructive feedback to API providers for continual improvement.

The overall API rating score, out of a possible 100 points, is a weighted blend of the following key categories:

Functionality and Performance (20 points): This assesses whether the API does what it promises to do, the response time, and how well it handles high loads or stress situations.
Reliability and Stability (20 points): We look at the consistency of the API in delivering its expected outcomes and how often it encounters downtime or errors.
Documentation Quality (15 points): Comprehensive, clear, and up-to-date documentation is crucial for developers. This criteria focuses on the thoroughness, accuracy, and the presence of examples in the API's documentation.
Ease of Use (15 points): This includes the learning curve associated with the API, the intuitiveness of its design, and how straightforward it is to implement and integrate into a project.
Security and Privacy (10 points): This involves analyzing the security measures in place, such as encryption and access controls, and whether the API complies with data protection and privacy laws.
Support and Community (10 points): A strong community and good developer support can make or break an API. We evaluate the quality of the support provided by the company and the helpfulness of the community around the API.
Versioning and Backward Compatibility (5 points): This aspect rates how well the API handles updates and whether it maintains backward compatibility, thus ensuring applications depending on it do not break with new updates.
Rate Limiting and Fair Use (5 points): This reviews the API's policies on usage limits, looking at whether these are reasonable and how they are communicated.

Please note, these scores are not just numbers; they're the culmination of countless hours of integration, testing, and feedback from our dedicated team of engineers. Dive into the reviews below to get a more detailed insight into the APIs we've tested to get a sense of the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Grade	Provider	Rating	Review
A-	Google Forms	91	The API documentation for Google Forms was clear and straightforward, making it easy to understand. Creating an app in Google also offers developers a wide range of possibilities. However, it would be more convenient for users if there were an endpoint available for each form, as manually copying the form ID from the URL path can be a cumbersome task. Despite this minor inconvenience, Google Forms remains a powerful and flexible tool for API integration. Overall, I found the experience to be positive and the platform to be a reliable option for developers.
C+	Airtable	78	The Airtable API has good documentation, however there are some nuances that make it hard to integrate with. For example, they require the S256 code challenge method which required a custom auth implementation. In addition, you must make multiple API requests to retrieve metadata such as the Base ID and Table ID. Finally, their data types are fairly non-standard, meaning that we had to do custom data wrangling to support field mapping.
F	Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central	0	The documentation was very hard to read, had several glaring errors that made it difficult to progress. Partner blogs and other third-party resources often had to be used to figure out necessary information. The required scope was not listed in the documentation, and had to be sourced from online complaints. Overall, the integration experience was not easy and involved a lot of complications.
B	FreshDesk	85	In general, integrating with Freshdesk was a positive experience. However, providing both the site URL and API key during integration could be inconvenient for some users. Nevertheless, I appreciated the way Freshdesk implemented custom fields, offering a variety of field types and an endpoint to access them. This made it easy to customize and manage data in a way that suited my needs. Overall, Freshdesk proved to be a reliable and versatile provider for API integration.
A+	Capsule	98	The CapsuleCRM API docs were very good. The Authentication was fairly standard with OAuth and all the endpoints were clearly defined. The only trouble was finding the right headers to write to the API with.
B	FreshService	86	The FreshService API Documentation was very informative with each section clearly labeled. It was a fairly standard implementation of an Basic API key authentication. However the inputs of an API Key and Domain URL place a great burden on our end users and opens the door to more errors.
A-	JazzHR	90	A fairly standard implementation, however documentation is sparse. API authentication is simple, but is more difficult to authenticate with from the perspective of our users. Also, it would be helpful if documentation included the full schema of returned results.
B	Keap	86	The Keap API has good documentation. However the main issue was the fact that the authentication code flow is placed in a separate section from the actual API documentation which made it hard to find. However the docs themselves were very concise and self explanatory with each section clearly laid out.
B	Mixpanel	86	Mixpanel is easy to integrate with and has simple API documentation.
C+	PipelineCRM	77	The PipelineCRM API is simple to integrate with. However, there is no explicit rate limit mentioned in the documentation.
D	Monday.com	63	My experience integrating with Monday was moderate, despite their API documentation being comprehensive and providing clear instructions. However, working with GraphQL may not be as comfortable for some developers compared to other API formats. Additionally, submitting an app to the marketplace can be a more involved process with Monday, as there may be more requirements to meet than with other providers. However, these requirements are in place to maintain certain standards and formats for the apps available on the platform.
F	Chargebee	30	Chargebee's API is terribly documented and very hard to use. THe layout of the API is somewhat friendly but there aren't a lot of details about what is required and what isn't required for a call to happen.
B+	Insightly	88	The Insightly API has ok documentation. The API key is easier to interface compared to OAuth but it places a larger burden on our end users. Additionally the presence of an API Url that needs to be inputted presents an area that could cause more problems. The documentation itself is very informative however an example call of each method would have been useful
B	Zapier	85	A very non-standard integration, but a fun challenge to integrate with. Good docs, however due to the nature of the integration itself we had to support a lot of custom features to support Zapier.
D+	Applied Epic	67	Integrating with Applied Epic without a fully approved API account is difficult, as the mock API is not well implemented and simply returns static responses, meaning features like search and pagination cannot be tested. Applied Epic's OAuth uses the client credentials flow, meaning each client must have its own OAuth ID and secret. Other than that, the API is decent, but many core objects such as policies cannot be fetched without individually fetching them from each client.
B-	Customer.io Track	81	The Customer.io API has decent documentation. The API key authentication is easier to interface with compared to OAuth, but presents a larger burden on our end users. In addition, for some endpoints it is a completely separate out API interface requiring a 'Site ID' which presents an additional area for possible problems, and the custom Basic encoding is also a pain point. The API makes up for some of its flaws, as it natively supports upsert for creating customers.
C-	Lemlist	70	My experience using the Lemlist API documentation was positive, and the rate limits they offer are reasonable compared to other providers. However, I encountered an issue with the basic auth, which didn't work as expected. Instead, I had to pass the API key as a query parameter, which is an unusual approach. Additionally, exporting Lemlist leads may be a tedious process, as the response is a CSV file rather than JSON.
A-	Hubspot	92	One of the best documented APIs, with a support community of developers. However, the field types are not standard, requiring custom data wrangling to support field mapping. In addition, the associations API is very bulky. Some legacy endpoints such as upsert contacts are still not supported in the latest version, and we have had problems with various OAuth bugs that have been reported to HubSpot.
F	Microsoft Teams	51	The API documentation from Microsoft providers is quite a challenge to navigate. It's convoluted, disjointed, and often inconsistent, particularly in relation to different API versions, deprecation notices, and more. Genuinely one of the worst integration experiences out of the CRMs. OAuth2 authentication implementation was very confusing.
A+	Zoho CRM	100	Working with Zoho is a great experience, as it strikes a good balance between flexibility and simplicity. The platform is easy for users to customize, making it a great tool for managing customer relations. Additionally, Zoho offers OAuth authentication, which is a secure and seamless option for users. The platform offers a wide range of endpoints, making it simpler for developers to integrate with the API and access the data they need.
A+	Constant Contact	100	The API documentation provided by Constant Contact was easy to understand, and the process of creating an app was straightforward. The use of OAuth for authentication is an advantage for users, providing a secure and seamless way to access their accounts. Overall, my experience working with this provider was positive and the integration process was efficient.
B	SendGrid	85	SendGrid is simple to integrate with. Ratelimiting can be difficult to implement, but documentation is very clear.
C	Endear	73	Endear's API is currently in beta, making it tough to work with at times. Some of the creation endpoints natively support batch creation and upsert, which can make exporting easier and quicker. All endpoints are GraphQL-based, which can become difficult at times when working with a JSON codebase.
B	Teamwork CRM	85	The documentation provided by Teamwork CRM was clear and informative, which made the integration process straightforward. I appreciated that they offer both OAuth and basic authentication, providing users with a range of options for accessing their accounts. However, the rate limits imposed by Teamwork CRM were slow, which can be a limiting factor for developers who need to make frequent API requests.
B	OnePageCRM	85	In general, developing with the OnePageCRM API was a positive experience. The documentation was comprehensive, providing clear explanations and instructions. The pagination and fields for each endpoint were straightforward and easy to work with. However, using OAuth authentication would be more secure and convenient than using an API key. Additionally, it would be beneficial to have an endpoint for creating companies, which would enhance the functionality and flexibility of the API.
B+	Outreach	88	A fine API to integrate with. Good API documentation, however the process for API approval and sandbox provisioning is a bit long.
F	Stamped	45	My experience working with Stamped was not very positive. The authentication process was complex, requiring users to input a store hash, private API key, and public API key, which can be tedious and time-consuming. Additionally, updating a customer did not work well, with some fields updating inconsistently or not at all. As a result, we had to remove the update feature from the customer integration.
B	Close	83	The Close API has fairly good documentation. The API key authentication is easier to interface with compared to OAuth, but presents a larger burden on our end users. In addition, specific data such as urls must be cleaned before passing them through to the API.
D+	Woodpecker	68	The Woodpecker API was fairly easy to implement as a simple API key. However this places a larger burden on our end users. The Woodpecker API Docs however were not the best. All the methods and authentication methods were all scattered around different web pages. The actual notes on the methods themselves were fairly good
B	VTiger	83	VTiger is easy to fully integrate with, as one endpoint can handle every object type. However, the initial integration is somewhat difficult to implement, and the dynamic domain values used in VTiger can create vulnerabilities if not sanitized correctly.
B+	Zendesk Sell	89	Zendesk Sell has a built-in upsert feature and simple pagination, making it easy to integrate with.
D	Nimble	65	While Nimble provides a straightforward and simple development experience, their API documentation could benefit from a more user-friendly interface and clearer explanations of the endpoints. It can be easy to get confused when searching for specific endpoints and integrating with the platform. Additionally, using OAuth authentication would be a more secure and seamless option compared to using an API key.
D	Quickbooks	65	Working with QuickBooks was challenging due to the nature of accounting, but the provider itself offers excellent documentation and a sandbox account for testing and development, which I found very useful for avoiding errors with the production account. Unfortunately, QuickBooks's OAuth authentication did not follow their documentation and was very difficult to implement. It also included a non-standard return on the callback with a necessary id that had to be persisted across all of the API calls.
B	BigCommerce	84	BigCommerce's API is simple to work with, and has an attributes endpoint to ensure fields are always up to date. However, implementing BigCommerce requires an API path from each customer, which can be dangerous, leading to infrastructure attacks such as SSRF (server-side request forgery) if not handled correctly.
F	Xero	53	The Xero API had acceptable API documentation for the objects and endpoints it supports. However, the authentication codeflow of the Xero API made it hard to integrate with. The need to decode the access token as a JWT token after the OAuth authentication to request another ID after was definitely not favored.
C	Google Sheets	74	Integrating with a spreadsheet provider can be tricky, and Google Sheets is no exception. Google Sheets has an endpoint for appending records, making create operations easier. Mapping columns to names can get a bit complicated.
B	Copper	86	The integration process with Copper is somewhat straight forward. Associations can slightly complicate things at times, but overall it is fairly easy to integrate with Copper.
A-	Salesforce	90	Salesforce is undoubtedly one of the best CRMs available due to its customization and versatility. The platform offers a wide range of objects, and the ability to retrieve their fields using an endpoint is extremely useful, making it a feature that every provider should offer. However, the platform's complexity may cause some users to experience difficulties, and it's easy to get lost in the documentation. Despite this, it's worth taking the time to understand the platform's flexibility and capabilities. Moreover, Salesforce offers OAuth as an authentication method, which is a secure and seamless option that enhances the overall user experience.
F	Microsoft Dynamics 365	48	The API documentation from Microsoft providers is quite a challenge to navigate. It's convoluted, disjointed, and often inconsistent, particularly in relation to different API versions, deprecation notices, and more. Genuinely one of the worst integration experiences out of the CRMs. In addition, they require the URL to authenticate and make requests which is very non-standard. OAuth2 authentication implementation was very confusing.
B-	Intercom	82	Intercom has good documentation, easy authentication, and a simple API.
D-	Google Ads	62	Google Ads is difficult to integrate with. The API documentation leaves a lot for you to figure out, some things are simply untestable without an active ad campaign, and everything is accessed through a chain of SQL-like queries. In addition, integrating with Google Ads outside of very limited, internal circumstances requires you to get a developer token and OAuth approved, which can take over a month and requires design documents and sample videos.
B	Mailchimp	83	You must fetch the specific user's datacenter to use Mailchimp APIs, which can make integrating slightly more complicated. Other than that, the documentation is well written and it's easy to integrate with Mailchimp.
C	Accelo	73	The Accelo API Documentation itself was very informative with each section clearly labeled. However, the authentication method for Accelo was definitley not a favorite. The inclusion of a deployment ID input in conjunction with OAuth places a great burden on our end users and allows for more error.
C-	Nutshell	70	I found it unusual that Nuthsell has a single base URL endpoint and requires specifying the method as a parameter. Additionally, providing both the API key and user email for authentication can be inconvenient for some users. However, the documentation provided by Nuthsell was clear and easy to understand, even though the interface could benefit from better organization.
B	Active Campaign	85	Integrating with ActiveCampaign was a smooth and straightforward process, thanks to the comprehensive API documentation that provided clear explanations for each endpoint and the necessary authorization requirements. Additionally, the rate limits were reasonable, making it easier to manage requests and avoid exceeding limits. However, there are a few areas where ActiveCampaign could improve the user experience. Firstly, using OAuth instead of API key authentication would provide a more secure and streamlined authentication process for users.Secondly, requiring users to provide the base URL can be a tedious process.