No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Apollo GraphOS vs Kong Gateway Enterprise comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Apollo GraphOS
Ranking in API Management
20th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
4.4
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Kong Gateway Enterprise
Ranking in API Management
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the API Management category, the mindshare of Apollo GraphOS is 0.8%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Kong Gateway Enterprise is 3.5%, down from 7.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
API Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Kong Gateway Enterprise3.5%
Apollo GraphOS0.8%
Other95.7%
API Management
 

Featured Reviews

MB
Business Development Manager at Digitaltrack
Unified schemas have streamlined team collaboration and have reduced API-related deployment issues
We had a positive experience with Apollo GraphOS, but there are a few areas where I think it could be improved. One area is the learning curve around GraphQL Federation and schema governance. Teams that are new to federated architectures often need to understand best practices. More guided onboarding, built-in recommendations, and practical examples would make adoption easier. I also think the observability and troubleshooting experience could be enhanced, particularly when diagnosing issues that span multiple subgraphs. While the platform provides useful insights, tracing complex requests across a federated environment can still require additional investigations. Another improvement would be more granular administrative controls and reporting, especially for larger organizations where different teams manage different parts of the GraphQL platform. Although the CI/CD integration is one of the product's strengths, having more out-of-the-box integrations and similar configurations for popular DevOps tools would reduce the initial setup effort. These suggestions would make the platform easier to adopt, operate, and scale, particularly for organizations that are beginning their GraphQL Federation journey. One thing I would like to see in future releases is deeper operational visibility for large-scale federated environments. As the number of subgraphs and development teams grows, it becomes more important to quickly identify where performance bottlenecks or schema-related issues are originating without having to correlate information from multiple tools. More built-in governance capabilities would be valuable, such as stronger policy enforcement, approval workflows for schema changes, and richer reporting for platform administrators. Another area that could be improved is the onboarding experience. While the documentation is comprehensive, having more guided setup wizards, architectures, and real-world implementation examples would help new teams become productive more quickly. I would also like to see even broader integrations with common enterprise monitoring, security, and development platforms so organizations can manage Apollo GraphOS as part of their existing operational ecosystem rather than relying on additional customization. These points would make day-to-day administration easier and improve the experience for organizations running GraphQL at a larger scale.
KS
Business Consultant at Ernst & Young
Modernization projects have progressed well but documentation and security guidance still need work
Bringing in additional features to Kong Gateway Enterprise would not necessarily help it. Improving the existing features, increasing security, and adding robustness would be more beneficial. The focus should be on stabilizing the product, improving it, and increasing the documentation. Kong should focus on how the product can be self-onboarded or self-implemented, as this would ease and help customers significantly. The necessary deployment of Kong Gateway Enterprise, API management, and guidance on how customers can use it or improve that area would be helpful. Security is a major concern, especially with new security architecture coming into place. These are the areas that should be prioritized. Beyond these areas, I do not see anything lacking. Kong Gateway Enterprise is quite comprehensive.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Apollo GraphOS has had a positive impact by improving the way we manage and evolve our GraphQL APIs."
"Apollo GraphOS positively impacts my organization by providing a complete platform for API orchestration, schema governance, observability, and federation."
"Apollo GraphOS has had a positive impact on our organization by making our API development process more structured, predictable, and collaborative."
"Apollo GraphOS has significantly enhanced both the developer experience and product delivery timelines by offering a centralized approach to managing GraphQL schemas and services, helping reduce overhead and improve collaboration between frontend and backend teams."
"The most valuable features of Apollo GraphOS OS for me are its security and authentication processes."
"Overall, Apollo GraphOS has been a valuable asset."
"Apollo GraphOS has positively impacted our organization by reducing unwanted code and helping us combine multiple services."
"In our buying companies' perspective, it was easier to use compared to other platforms. The markets were pretty familiar with the solutions."
"Kong Gateway helped to improve performance. It's good enough for our users."
"We use the solution for load-balancing, caching, and rate-limiting APIs."
"Good at intercepting traffic and modeling APIs around that."
"The price is reasonable compared to that of alternative solutions."
"The clients that we have already deployed are happy with it."
"There are a few features that I like about Kong when it comes to authentication and authorization. Specifically, being able to use Kong for role-based access control (RBAC), and then further being able to integrate the RBAC mechanism with our enterprise directory, was very useful."
"Kong Gateway Enterprise is quite comprehensive."
 

Cons

"I think Apollo GraphOS can be improved since teams new to GraphQL federation may find concepts such as subgraphs, schema composition, contracts, and router configuration take time to understand, making the platform seem more complex than necessary for smaller teams."
"The reason I held back from giving it a perfect score is that some enterprise scenarios still require additional effort."
"Apollo GraphOS OS is using a detailed project, and it can be time-consuming because it has a lot of data to manage. It sometimes takes longer than three seconds, which can affect loading times and lead to user dissatisfaction. I would like to see improved performance."
"Apollo GraphOS could be improved with simpler pricing, more transparent usage and cost reporting, easier onboarding for new teams and learners, and more detailed documentation and troubleshooting guidance for complex GraphQL."
"There’s room for improvement in schema collaboration tools, especially in large teams where multiple developers are working on overlapping parts of the API."
"I rated it six out of ten because while it offers useful capabilities such as schema management, schema validation, and API observability, I feel there are several areas that need improvement."
"Kong is meant for north-south communications, so it will be interesting to see what solutions they can come up with in the realms of east-west communications, service-to-service communications, and Zero Trust architecture. I believe that if they can provide for these areas, then they will be able to solve the overall integration and security concerns for microservices architecture in general."
"We are facing issues with the solution's features like reports and traffic analysis."
"From an improvement perspective, the product should offer more readily available connectors and also allow for more seamless AI integrations."
"Kong Enterprise has decided not to support the web portal feature anymore, but I think that feature should stay in the on-premises solution."
"The solution should include policy features that are available in other solutions like MuleSoft API manager but missing in Kong Enterprise."
"It becomes difficult if you try to scale it up to multiple clusters."
"Kong Enterprise can improve the customization to be able to do the integration properly."
"The ease of billing is lost when Kong is not available directly on the Azure marketplace. This is one area where they can improve."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Kong Enterprise is cheaper than Apigee. I rate its pricing as four out of ten."
"There is a need to pay towards the licensing charges...In some areas, the functionalities are available free of charge."
"The product is reasonably priced because it goes by the SaaS model."
"There are many factors that influence the price of Kong Enterprise, such as scale, licenses, and usage."
"The licensing fees are paid yearly."
"Kong Enterprise's pricing is reasonable for our company size."
"Basically, my company uses the tool's open-source version."
"It's expensive in Thailand (10 million baht, in Thai currency)."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Management solutions are best for your needs.
915,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
12%
University
10%
Program Development Consultancy
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
6%
Insurance Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise3
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Large Enterprise20
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Apollo GraphOS?
I am not sensitive to nor very knowledgeable about the pricing and setup cost.
What needs improvement with Apollo GraphOS?
I think Apollo GraphOS can be improved since teams new to GraphQL federation may find concepts such as subgraphs, schema composition, contracts, and router configuration take time to understand, ma...
What is your primary use case for Apollo GraphOS?
My main use case for Apollo GraphOS is creating APIs with GraphQL. I create subgraphs and schema composition, contracts, schema registry, and change validation, which helps me prevent breaking chan...
How does Kong Enterprise compare with Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager?
The Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager was designed with its users in mind. Though it is a reasonably complex piece of software, it is easy to install and upgrade. While there are different things that ...
What needs improvement with Kong Enterprise?
Bringing in additional features to Kong Gateway Enterprise would not necessarily help it. Improving the existing features, increasing security, and adding robustness would be more beneficial. The f...
What is your primary use case for Kong Enterprise?
Our primary use cases for Kong Gateway Enterprise are modernizations, migrations, and digitalizations of financial institutions. These are the primary areas we are looking for.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Cargill, Zillow, Ferrari, WeWork, Healthcare.gov, Yahoo! Japan, Giphy, SkyScanner
Find out what your peers are saying about Apollo GraphOS vs. Kong Gateway Enterprise and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
915,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.