We compared MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager and Kong Enterprise based on our users reviews in five parameters. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
The opinions on the setup process for MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager vary, with some users finding it complicated in the past but noting improvements over time. In contrast, Kong Enterprise generally offers a smooth and easy installation process, although a few users encountered difficulties and needed professional assistance.
MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager is highly regarded for its adaptability, expandability, gateway service, policy management at the API level, reliability, user-friendly interface, extensive range of connectors, seamless integration, diverse API options, and incorporation of security measures. On the other hand, Kong Enterprise distinguishes itself with its network services based on plugins, support for plugins, functionality derived from open source, features for authentication and authorization, customization through Lua scripting, impressive performance, and limitations on routing.
The users suggest that MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager could enhance its scalability, pricing options, performance, security options, and customization. On the other hand, Kong Enterprise could improve its pricing, automatic data API creation, customization, scaling up process, and developer portal.
The cost of setting up MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager can be high and varies compared to other options. Users have different opinions, with some finding it expensive and others considering it reasonable. In contrast, Kong Enterprise's pricing is influenced by factors such as scale and usage. It is open-source, indicating that it may be less expensive, although still higher than comparable products. The licensing costs for Kong Enterprise are considered reasonable.
Customers have reported positive experiences with the customer service and support of both MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager and Kong Enterprise. They found the support to be helpful, responsive, and prompt. Additionally, customers specifically praised Kong Enterprise's customer service for their assistance with Lua plugin installation.
Comparison Results
To summarize, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager and Kong Enterprise have distinct characteristics. MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager is highly regarded for its adaptability, expandability, and extensive toolset. However, users have encountered difficulties during the initial setup, faced limitations due to vendor coupling, and expressed concerns about pricing. Conversely, Kong Enterprise is praised for its seamless installation, network services based on plugins, and authentication capabilities. Nevertheless, users have recommended enhancements in pricing, customization, and scalability. Both products receive positive feedback regarding customer service and support.
"Protocol transformation is the most valuable feature of Kong Enterprise."
"Kong Enterprise comes with some ready plug-ins, which is very good for the customers."
"The solution provides good performance."
"The tool's feature that I find most beneficial is rate limiting. In our usage, especially in the financial sector, we prioritize limiting API usage. This is crucial because we provide APIs to other companies and must ensure they adhere to their allocated usage limits. Without rate limiting, there's a risk of excessive usage, which could result in significant costs."
"The most valuable features of Kong Enterprise are the out-of-the-box open source easy functionality."
"Kong Enterprise has excellent plugin support."
"The most valuable feature of Kong Enterprise is its capability to integrate with various security tools."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it seamlessly supports a vast number of tools."
"MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager has the most valuable data components and can integrate APIs across multiple microservices."
"It is a good management tool for controlling purposes."
"MuleSoft has given the API solution a 3-tiered architecture. This means that there are multiple channels available in one application. The usability is very high."
"The ease of policy maintenance and API functionality are key features for me. They streamline business processes by allowing configurable control over policies, instead of writing codes and making maintenance more straightforward."
"It provides all of the robust platform-enabled features."
"The entire offering and suite of tools that this solution provides have been very valuable. We are able to manage APIs on runtime on a cloud basis which has been very useful."
"We have all the policies available via drag and drop. It made it very easy."
"The most valuable features of the solution for securing APIs stem from the tool's ability to allow users to deploy policies."
"Because it is open-source, it should be less expensive than others."
"The OS upgrades are not as frequent as they should be and they are bulky."
"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."
"The technical support team's response time needs to be improved."
"The developer portal needs to be improved."
"Kong Enterprise needs to improve its pricing, which starts at hundreds of thousands of dollars. Pricing should be based on API usage rather than monthly. It should improve its documentation as well."
"Kong Enterprise fails to provide live tracing of the APIs, which is possible nowadays."
"Understanding the configurations and knowing what needs to be done can be a bit difficult initially."
"The most important thing that should be improved is that it is too heavy."
"The API gateway and API runtime are too heavy, which means that it is not suitable for microservices."
"The initial setup is very complex."
"They should develop on MuleSoft as it would be a good way of improving API monetization."
"The product's price should be available for public review since it is not currently available for others to see, making it one of the areas where the product has certain shortcomings."
"There should be more pricing options or certain discounts for the education sector."
"I would like to see MuleSoft expand the range of APIs you can manage with it beyond HTTP, GIPC, and others."
"An area for improvement in MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager is the process of applying policies because it's manual. It would be great if MuleSoft could make the process easier, particularly by automating it."
More MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
Kong Gateway Enterprise is ranked 6th in API Management with 18 reviews while MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager is ranked 4th in API Management with 47 reviews. Kong Gateway Enterprise is rated 7.8, while MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Kong Gateway Enterprise writes "Provides role-based access control and can be easily customized with Lua script". On the other hand, the top reviewer of MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager writes "Responsive technical support, low tickets issued showing great stability, and limitless expansion". Kong Gateway Enterprise is most compared with Microsoft Azure API Management, WSO2 API Manager, Apigee, Apache APISIX and Amazon API Gateway, whereas MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager is most compared with Microsoft Azure API Management, Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, IBM API Connect and Layer7 API Management. See our Kong Gateway Enterprise vs. MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager report.
See our list of best API Management vendors.
We monitor all API Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
