Consider yourself corrected.
>read this blog for an full comparison http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2011/7/19/sqlachemy-and-you/ (quite old).
That's not a full comparison. It actually doesn't even touch on some of the advantages to using SQLAlchemy (i.e. in the more complex queries). It even says this at the bottom. Did you see that?
>For the Django part of your comment the other modules it provides are useful for building a website but not an API which was in the root comment.
So now APIs don't require integration work? When I build ANYTHING I want to be able to have as large an ecosystem of libraries to pull from as possible because it will save me from writing unnecessary code and reinventing the wheel. First thing I do before building anything is to check on pypi to see if somebody wrote it first.
Too many junior developers make the mistake of thinking that their problem, project or app is somehow a unique snowflake and end up reinventing the wheel because they had no idea the wheel existed. Semi-experienced developers will still make this mistake by making bad architectural decisions in the name of flexibility or performance that end up locking them out of library ecosystems that means they are forced to reinvent the wheel even when they know it exists.
Being an experienced architect means (among many other things) knowing when to make the trade off between not railroading your code unnecessarily and standardizing it enough to let you use the vast array of free libraries out there.
>Although in a project where I know the API is the core I would choose something lighter weight
It's a myth that Django is heavy weight. You can make a django app with about 10 lines of code in one file using just the URL router if you really want to. Each one of the components can be swapped out nearly seamlessly exactly like with Flask.
You might not want to use it because it's slow, however, but flask will be too.