Kong Gateway Enterprise Reviews

We had worked for a client from the travel industry who wanted to propose an API manager. They had built microservices on Java and another integration tool. They wanted to apply policies, register their APIs in the API manager, and enforce policies and plugins, like client ID, client secret, throttling, rate limiting, and protocol transformation. The client wanted to apply these things to their APIs.

Protocol transformation is the most valuable feature of Kong Enterprise.

Kong Enterprise allows a lot of customizations that provide a specific UI experience for each client.

The solution should include policy features that are available in other solutions like MuleSoft API manager but missing in Kong Enterprise.

I have been using Kong Enterprise for the past six to eight months.

We have not seen any stability issues so far with Kong Enterprise. None of our customers have reported any issues with the solution.

Kong Enterprise is a scalable solution.

No setup is required for Kong Enterprise because it has a complete cloud setup. You pay for a license, get credentials, and start registering your API and applying policies. It's completely cloud-based. We also have some open-source options where you set up the API manager on your Kubernetes clusters or dockers and register your API in the on-prem Kong API manager.

The solution requires maintenance, but I haven’t heard of any maintenance challenges so far.

A user's decision to choose Kong Enterprise or MuleSoft varies from use case to use case. Users should do a detailed technical assessment before choosing Kong Enterprise, MuleSoft API manager, or any other API manager tools available in the market.

Overall, I rate Kong Enterprise an eight out of ten.

I lead the integration practices in my organization and have been working in integration for the past 16 years, managing API integrations with various API manager tools such as Kong Enterprise.

We are primarily using Kong for the API gateway functionality. For example, we've had a couple of mobile applications with outbound traffic where we would use the Kong Enterprise gateway to expose the API by applying authorization, authentication, and other security policies.

We have also used Kong for role-based access control mechanism (RBAC) and integrated it with our enterprise directory in order provide it with this form of access control.

There was another particular use case in which we performed some customization, as well. In that scenario, we wrote a Lua script on top of Kong to add an AppDynamics plugin to our web server, for observability and monitoring purposes. 

Kong has been used over a large user base, not only because it's an enterprise application, but also because the mobile applications we worked with were B2C-based in the retail industry, so the number of users was quite high.

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.

Another nice aspect of Kong Enterprise is the ability to customize it with Lua script, such as when we developed a way to provide observability for our web server with AppDynamics. 

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.

I have used Kong Enterprise for a year and a half.

I don't recall that we have faced any challenges in terms of stability. It has been a good, solid implementation.

It is scalable in the sense that, as we started putting things onto the cloud, we added one application and then we scaled up the same instance with Kong for multiple applications, which was where we served everything. And since it was a mobile B2C application focused on the retail sector, the number of users was quite high.

The tech support was good. We mainly used them when we needed help with our Lua plugin installation and they were responsive to our needs. The team we dealt with were based in Singapore.

We previously tried using Apigee, but for our needs, Kong was the right solution.

The setup wasn't that simple. There was definitely a learning curve because Lua as a language was new to us and so we had to learn about Lua script first. At the same time, we also faced some other challenges in the implementation where we had to ask for professional support from Kong Enterprise.

The technical team working on our Kong deployment included three or four people on the infrastructure side and another two or three involved in development.

I don't have any information on licensing costs currently.

We also evaluated different options such as those provided by Mulesoft and others.

Kong Enterprise is a good API gateway and API management product which is based on lightweight and high-performance software. However, there will likely be a learning curve for beginners because they are using Lua script, which is not that popular. Regardless, anybody coming from a core software and integration background should be okay.

It's always good to keep in mind that you should use Kong for the purpose it is meant for, rather than overloading it or overburdening it with use cases that are not appropriate.

I would rate Kong Enterprise a nine out of ten.

The product seems to be good, especially in terms of API creation and management. The tool is seamlessly easy to use, and offers ease of configuration and management. The tool has some very good options for infusing some API security parts. The tool also offers some readily available connectors as well. From an overall perspective, I am handling both B2B integrations and cloud integrations. In our company, we had multiple products in place of Kong Gateway Enterprise.

Kong Gateway Enterprise enhances our company's API security in a strong way, and it is compliant with most of the security compliance issues, which is good from an assurance standpoint and acts as a strong point when it comes to the product. In terms of ease of configuration and maintenance of the APIs, the tool offers a very good dashboard, specifically API dashboards, which can provide you insights into how you can use the dashboard for monetizing your solution. For example, for some of the APIs that accompany the product and become a part of the ecosystem, be it for opening new services with different partners, the tool is able to provide good insights in terms of integration touchpoints, which not only caters to the internal ecosystem but also into a partner ecosystem, giving an agnostic view. Depending on the exact need of the hour and based on the requirements, Kong Gateway Enterprise is useful in terms of integration, ease of use, and dashboard.

Though I have not tested the tool, I can say that the product supports AI-driven applications. Nowadays, in most language models, especially when we talk about the edge deployment model, any of the platforms provide you with seamless integration, which is advantageous because most of the applications are consumed by end users. It also boils down to the fact associated with the latencies. For some of the services and requirements, it doesn't always have to be some public cloud infrastructure that one needs to experience. I believe that I will be better off with edge deployment, where things can be run on a nearby location where the customer proximity is there. A combination of AI and edge deployment will be an advantage.

The ease of integration offered by the tool is strong. The security is being built in the tool. In terms of the connectivity part of the tool, I haven't had a chance to comment on the challenges since we have not tried it on a large enterprise.

With Kong Gateway Enterprise, since users want more readily available connectors that can be used in head offices or back offices, it is an area that needs to be considered for improvement. For example, if I give out a setup tomorrow for the systems in head offices or back offices, like SAP or ERP systems, then you should be able to provide connectors, and it is an area where my company has not been able to test the product yet. The aforementioned features should not only be available in Kong Gateway Enterprise but also across the product stack offered by others.

From an improvement perspective, the product should offer more readily available connectors and also allow for more seamless AI integrations. Most of the products nowadays are becoming more AI-native because of the needs of the industry. The introduction of GenAI and the use of the integration part to make the tool more of an industry-based solution can make a difference.

I have been using Kong Gateway Enterprise for two to three years.

Speaking about scalability, I would say that I would not be able to comment on it since the product is not used in large enterprises from a scalability standpoint. The way the tool has been built and the way the API integrations are happening on the cloud solutions, I think it should not have a problem scaling up, but my company has not tested it. To see if the product can be scalable, my company needs to test it in large enterprises with the help of agents. I don't think the scalability part of the product will be an issue, but only if I deal with larger implementations can I be in a better position to comment on the scalability part.

The solution's technical support is good and fast in terms of responsiveness and problem-solving skills. I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

The product is reasonably priced because it goes by the SaaS model. When it comes to Kong Gateway Enterprise, I don't see much of a price point difference from other tools in the market.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

We use it to provide API services to our clients.

The features I like include ease of operation and implementation in a cloud environment, the dashboarding features for API statistics, and the user-friendly developer portal.

The plugin architecture is simple and easy to implement.

There is room for improvement in the licensing model. It charges differently for each geography. If I have to use Kong in two different geographies for the same organization, it charges me twice. When it comes to Azure, it doesn't charge me twice. Azure has a more economical model.

The licensing in the Middle East, where we work. The licensing of Kong and Azure is a lengthy process. It was not readily available. We had to talk to the product owner to make the Kong Gateway available as a solution on the Azure marketplace. The licensing is only as an on-prem or separate product. 

The difference between billing on the cloud and outside the cloud is if I purchase Kong outside, I have to pay the AMC every year or so. The purpose of cloud implementation is to have a consolidated billing for all resources purchased on the cloud. You don't need to deal with multiple vendors. If you have purchased five applications on the cloud marketplace, you get a single consolidated bill every month. 

The ease of billing is lost when Kong is not available directly on the Azure marketplace. This is one area where they can improve. There could be a problem with the Middle East geography. They may have Kong available on the Azure marketplace in other geographies, but this is how it is in the Middle East.

I have been using it for two and a half years. 

It is a very stable product. 

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten, with one being one scalability and ten being high. 

The scalability aspect has a limitation with geography. I can expand it to any country within one region, but not beyond. There are licensing implications. 

Technologically, it is scalable to whatever extent required, without any limitations. The limitation is only across geography. It cannot be scaled beyond one region.

There are around 25 technical people using this solution in my organization. We use it daily.

Kong is the first API solution we used. We started API solutions with Kong.

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a six out of ten, with one being difficult and ten being easy. 

The first implementation took three months.

The deployment was done by a vendor. 

Kong Gateway doesn't save anything, actually. It is not for that purpose. It's a technological solution, we cannot directly attribute revenue to Kong alone. Multiple applications work together to offer the APIs, and those API solutions have brought in some revenue, but not entirely because of Kong, so I cannot quantify that.

The licensing is expensive. I would rate the pricing an eight out of ten, with one being cheap and ten being expensive. 

Our parent organization has been using Kong and evaluated all the possibilities. We took their reference. Recently, we did an evaluation and migrated to Azure API Management from Kong.

I would recommend using it. It is a very powerful tool with lots of features. It's stable, user-friendly, and easy to learn.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

I use the solution in my company since we build our own products by using Spring Boot, Python and FastAPI. We mainly use the tool to monitor and provide security on top of those APIs.

The most valuable features of the solution are proxies and API monetization.

The tool needs to improve in areas like documentation and UI. The product needs to have good documentation and a good UI where we can see the other features. It was difficult for our company to understand the document when we needed to do some research and development work, which was some sort of a challenge we faced earlier. The tool should put efforts into the documentation, which can help the developer to develop products that the community is going to use in the future.

Additional features like offering good analytics performance and enhancing Kong Gateway Enterprise with GenAI capabilities can be helpful.

I have been using Kong Gateway Enterprise since 2018. I do not remember the tool's version. My company operates as an implementor and service provider of the tool.

In terms of stability, the tool's team has made some good efforts, and my company is very happy with the product's approach.

I rate the stability an eight to nine out of ten.

At the moment, we have ten people using the tool. Before COVID-19, we had a great team of around thirty members. Currently, we have a small team.

Scalability is part of the product. When we deploy the tool on any cloud, Docker supports the scaling process, both horizontally and vertically.

Basically, my company uses the tool's open-source version. I don't think we connected with any of the technical team members of the tool. We will get in touch with the team only if we go with the licensing model.

I have used Apigee, WSO2, and Microsoft's API gateway, along with some commercial tools like MuleSoft and Boomi. The tools were used as a part of the implementations done for our customers.

Considering that my company has experience with other products that are similar to Kong Gateway Enterprise, I can say that there is only a difference of a percentage or two between all the solutions, making it all the same for our organization.

I am an enterprise architect who is involved in everything from design to deployment.

For the product's initial setup phase, my company has a DevOps team that implements the APIs. The DevOps teams take care of containerization and ensure that everything is connected, which is like a general life cycle in any project. All the different teams, like the development teams, DevOps teams, admin teams, and DB teams, don't see any issues in the tool because all of the implementations are taken care of by all the teams. My company did not work with the team from Kong Gateway Enterprise.

Our organization supports Docker and containerization, so our company can put in some stuff related to Kong Gateway Enterprise outside of Docker containers.

My company chose the open-source model of the tool.

My company evaluated Kong Gateway Enterprise against WSO2, after which we started using it.

The performance and speed of the gateways created with the tool are both good.

My company used one or two plugins that Kong made available for Kong Gateway Enterprise.

If I were to assess Kong Gateway Enterprise for its speed of innovation through its version updates, I would say that it is a good tool. Its features are the reason why we shortlisted it as an open-source API management solution.

I did not check if the design of the gateway infrastructure helps achieve high gateway uptime. We have our own product, where we are developing a lot of APIs, and we want to deploy them through a gateway that takes care of routing and security. That was the intention that could stop not going with commercial tools like the Apigee or Microsoft's API gateway. My company thought of choosing Kong Gateway Enterprise to containerize and deploy our products.

The ease of the tool's update process is good.

I did not work with Kong Gateway Enterprise's team when my company was in the transition phase. We referred to the documentation.

I recommend the tool to others.

I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

Kong enterprise has significantly enhanced our ability to manage and secure our Microservices. Its most valuable feature is monitoring. 

The tool needs improvement in UX.

I have been using the product for six months. 

I rate the solution's stability an eight out of ten. 

I rate the tool's scalability an eight out of ten. My company has five to seven users. 

I have encountered communication issues. 

Neutral

I rate the tool's deployment a ten out of ten, and it took a few hours to complete. 

Kong Enterprise's pricing is reasonable for our company size. 

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten. 

Our primary use case for this solution is API management.

The route limiting feature is very valuable.

The product could be improved by making the scaling up process easier. For example, it becomes difficult if you try to scale it up to multiple clusters.

We have been using this solution for approximately three years.

The process of scaling up with this product is difficult. We have a small company, and about 20 people are working with this product, and approximately five people are maintaining it.

We have had a good experience with customer service and support. Initially, we used to have challenges, but thanks to a third-party vendor who developed a plugin called Konger, a UI dashboard, we can interact easily with Kong. However, it is not an official plugin.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The implementation process is easy because we have our own documented script, which automatically deploys it out of the box, depending on which environment we choose.

The product price is higher than similar products. Fortunately, a community version is available.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. The solution is good, but the scaling up process could be improved. I recommend new users store Kong Enterprise on a Red Hat-certified operating system, so they don't have challenges managing the binaries. Additionally, I would advise them always to use Kong Enterprise alongside a proxy so they have more extensible integration in terms of routing. I enjoyed using the Mongo DB, the Cassandra DB offering, and the Postgres DB offering as the database of choice because it becomes highly scalable and writes fast. Hence, I found that deploying and choosing Cassandra DB made it much faster to run.

We have already registered a couple of APIs in Kong Community, and we are exposing those Kong APIs to our product. ITMS services will be consuming those APIs from Kong. We use the solution for load-balancing, caching, and rate-limiting APIs.

If Kong provides a 30-day license like other API gateways, we can promote the solution to more customers because they are willing to use it. We are unable to showcase the security and functional features during the trial period, which is an issue for us. We are facing issues with the solution's features like reports and traffic analysis.

We have been using the solution for more than one year.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten for stability.

Around 20 users are using the solution in our organization.

I rate the solution a six out of ten for scalability.

The solution's initial setup is very easy.

With Kong Enterprise, we are facing challenges in getting the trial license, reports, and traffic analysis. We have one customer onboarded, but we need to demonstrate to them the features, and we need to migrate from IBM One Gateway to Kong.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.