We compared WSO2 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 setup process for WSO2 API Manager can vary in difficulty and complexity, taking approximately three months for full implementation. Some users found it straightforward, while others found it medium or difficult. Interactions with WSO2 could be improved according to some users. On the other hand, the installation process for Kong Enterprise was generally smooth and easy, with some users completing it within 15 to 20 minutes on average. Learning Lua script and seeking professional support were mentioned as challenges. Overall, the initial setup was considered reasonably easy and straightforward, taking a couple of weeks for some users.
WSO2 API Manager is highly regarded for its versatile authentication methods and extensive customization choices. It provides a user-friendly interface, thorough documentation, and exhibits stability and scalability. On the other hand, Kong Enterprise distinguishes itself with its network services based on plugins, robust authentication and authorization capabilities, and the ability to customize Lua scripts for observability.
The WSO2 API Manager has room for improvement in its user interface, user management system, security compliance, reverse proxy, multifactor authentication, and usability. Kong Enterprise, on the other hand, could improve its pricing, automatic data API creation, customization for integration, solutions for east-west communications and Zero Trust architecture, scaling up process, and developer portal with isolated data plans for federated teams.
The cost of setting up WSO2 API Manager can be expensive for users who need to run multiple instances and clusters. The specific cost is not provided, but it is stated to be less than 20,000 euros annually. In contrast, Kong Enterprise pricing is determined by factors like scale, licenses, and usage. While it is considered higher than comparable products, the licensing costs are reasonable.
The feedback regarding the customer service and support for WSO2 API Manager is varied, with certain customers expressing dissatisfaction. On the other hand, Kong Enterprise has garnered positive reviews for its customer service and support.
Comparison Results
In comparing WSO2 API Manager to Kong Enterprise, it is evident that they have distinct characteristics. WSO2 API Manager provides various authentication methods, ample customization choices, and a reliable, expandable platform. Nevertheless, it does have areas that need improvement, including an outdated user interface, intricate setup, and limited user management flexibility. Conversely, Kong Enterprise boasts a seamless installation process, valuable network services based on plugins, and commendable authentication and authorization features. Additionally, it receives praise for its customer service. However, it may necessitate learning Lua script and has room for enhancement in aspects such as pricing and customization.
"The most valuable features of Kong Enterprise are the out-of-the-box open source easy functionality."
"The solution provides good performance."
"Kong Enterprise has excellent plugin 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."
"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."
"The tool's scalability is good...The solution's technical support is good."
"The most valuable feature of Kong Enterprise is its capability to integrate with various security tools."
"There are a lot of tools to help the manager. WSO2 is very easy to install. It has all the principal functionalities that you think about when you want to put up the management solution. It's a very friendly tool."
"The product is easy to use."
"The solution is open-source."
"The user interface is easy to navigate, and the documentation is extensive. It's open-source, so everything is available, and we can create what we need. That's not necessarily a feature, but it's an advantage."
"The solution is open source and easy to configure."
"WSO2 API Manager is easy to use."
"The most interesting feature is its Mac-based function."
"This solution is a little bit faster, easier to use, and has better integration than the other solutions I have experienced."
"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."
"The solution should include policy features that are available in other solutions like MuleSoft API manager but missing in Kong Enterprise."
"The developer portal needs to be improved."
"It becomes difficult if you try to scale it up to multiple clusters."
"There should be an easier way to integrate with other solutions, even though it's the same API solution layer. Comparability will be a good improvement."
"The product's price is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The technical support team's response time needs to be improved."
"The tool needs improvement in UX."
"From a product perspective, the first thing is that although the documentation provided by WSO2 is good, it could be much better. We're in the middle of a complex migration, moving away from VMs to Kubernetes with the latest version of WSO2 and good documentation is essential to us right now."
"Lacks some new features and updated functionalities."
"Based on our recent large scaling project, the latency needs to be improved."
"For fresh graduates and engineers, the setup process can be very difficult."
"I would like it to be a more convenient development platform with the ability to write orchestrations and so on. Our problem with this product is that in my country, we are the only enterprise that has been using this product. We're missing a lot of knowledge from colleagues to consult with, and we also aren't able to recruit people with relevant skills. It is a big problem. The small team that is maintaining this product is the only team that can actually relate to any technical issue. The support that we're getting from the company is not great. There is also a cultural gap there because they're from Sri Lanka, and it is not easy. They're putting in a lot of effort, but they are not meeting our expectations."
"From what I have experienced from the versions I have tried, they could improve on the multi-tenant environments to allow some kind of SSO single sign-on between tenant."
"WSO2 API Manager could increase their security compliance."
"They are developing another platform called Choreo that allows you to create API itself using the WSO2 programming language Ballerina. It would be great if they added a direct connection between Choreo and API Manager, that would be great. I think they are working on that, but I'm not sure."
Kong Gateway Enterprise is ranked 6th in API Management with 18 reviews while WSO2 API Manager is ranked 7th in API Management with 33 reviews. Kong Gateway Enterprise is rated 7.8, while WSO2 API Manager is rated 8.0. 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 WSO2 API Manager writes "Reliable with good capabilities and good support". Kong Gateway Enterprise is most compared with Microsoft Azure API Management, Apigee, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Apache APISIX and Amazon API Gateway, whereas WSO2 API Manager is most compared with Apigee, Amazon API Gateway, Microsoft Azure API Management, Apache APISIX and 3scale API Management. See our Kong Gateway Enterprise vs. WSO2 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.
