Kong Reviews

Performance, Easy to use and manage. Ease of Integration

the documentation lacking in clarity or depth, making it challenging to troubleshoot issues or implement advanced configurations.

Unified API Management: Kong acts as a centralized entry point for managing APIs, providing a unified interface to control authentication, rate limiting, logging, and other functionalities. This streamlines API management, making it easier to monitor and control API traffic. Traffic Control and Monitoring: Kong enables rate limiting, caching, and throttling, controlling the flow of traffic to APIs. It also provides monitoring and analytics tools to track API usage, performance, and errors.

Super easy to setup in a cloud provider or even as a container running in your own network, exposing which services you want to the outside world.

Pretty easy to configure and maintain, has good documentation, and a good community around.

Open source version is somewhat limited.

Services with different runtimes are easily plugged into and served from the gateway, not limiting the tech stack.

User and access management is outside the services and its databases, and no need for extra cloud providers' services.

Effortless Setup: The quick start guide provides a seamless onboarding experience and with a single bash command you are up and running with Kong API Gateway.

Not specific uptil now. I am using OSS version and I feel all my requirements are catered through it

Kong API Gateway solves the problem solved by any API Gateway like:

- Security of the exposed APIs

- Monitoring, analytics and Observability of the APIs

- Rate Limiting

- Traffic Control

- Service Discovery and Load Balancing

The best part is Kong lets these do easily through easy to use configurations and settings in the UI

Easy to configure services and routes and plugins in kong and several security plugins makes development handy.

Different flavours of deployment with kong like CP DP Model , Kong mesh and Kong Konnect and standalone on prem deployment.

Lightening fast routing traffic and plugin execution makes it best in performance.

Several policies with kong mesh makes the development handy.

Easy to integrate with the microservices and easy to implement custom plguins .

Creating Custom Plugins using lua ,

forces to learn new technology,

Although kong has flexibility to integrate with GO and JS ,

Still I feel the performance is not similar

Faster routing the requests across the microservices and the authentication plugins helps to remove the extra burden on creating separate authentication layer on top of microservies.

Kong is a highpowered and highly customizeable Nginx service which has been given a lot of attention when it was being created. Kong has some of the best documentation of any application I've ever deployed. Kong also offers lots of options when it comes to configuration, setting up configurations is super easily with the provided DecK tool.

Kong is just an application designed to get you to pay for the advanced featues. Authentication plugins should not be a paid for premium feature and should be available for all.

Microservices and endpoint management when done through Nginx raw configurations. Having simple configurations wich allow you to deploy services saves many headaches.

The flexibility and expansion of Kong API Gateway are among its most notable qualities, which I find particularly valuable. Kong has a feature-rich feature set that includes a large selection of plugins that may be easily integrated to customize the gateway to meet particular requirements. With our microservices design, this flexibility has been beneficial, enabling us to easily handle a variety of requirements including rate restriction, logging, and authentication. Another significant feature of Kong that guarantees it will always be a dependable and effective answer to our changing requirements is its capacity to grow horizontally with our API traffic.

Although Kong API Gateway has shown to be an effective solution for our purposes in managing APIs, there are a few areas that might be improved to better the user experience as a whole. One thing to consider is the learning curve involved in configuring and setting up Kong, particularly for users who are not too familiar with microservices architectures or API gateways. Streamlining the onboarding process with more user-friendly tutorials or documentation could be beneficial.

Furthermore, while though Kong's community support is vibrant and beneficial, there have been times when it has taken longer than expected to find certain answers for particular use cases. To remedy this issue, more documentation and a wider range of community-contributed materials could be very helpful. It's crucial to remember that, in our opinion, Kong's advantages greatly exceed these tiny drawbacks.

We have been able to smoothly install crucial functionality thanks to the gateway's large selection of plugins. For instance, our APIs' security has been much improved by Kong's authorization and authentication features. We've successfully implemented JWT validation, OAuth, and API key management, guaranteeing that our microservices are accessed safely.

Maintaining peak performance and dependability has become increasingly dependent on load balancing capabilities, particularly as our API traffic has grown. Kong's capacity to disperse incoming requests among several microservice instances has enhanced the system's scalability and resilience.

Kong has the easy to understand user interface for managing APIs using the Gateway Manager and Mesh Manager. Support via email is responsive and timely. We were smoothly able to integrate APIs hosted on AWS infrastructure.

Analytics are on-point but it could be more comprehensive, else everything looks great.

We used to depend on AWS API gateway but it was a basic tool and had scalability. Now we can efficiently manage APIs using Kong's Gateway Manager and Mesh Manager.

During my recent project involving API gateway implementation, I had the opportunity to explore and utilize the various deployment options provided by Kong Gateway. I found these options to be thoroughly documented and well-supported by Kong. Throughout the implementation process, I received excellent support from the Kong team, which greatly contributed to the success of the project.

While evaluating Kong Gateway, I observed that certain features, such as the built-in management and developer portals, may not be as robust as alternative solutions. However, I was particularly impressed by the strength of the configuration management tools provided by Kong. These tools enabled efficient and effective management of configurations, enhancing the overall functionality of the API gateway.

API Management in Kong involves comprehensive API capabilities that allows us to efficiently manage and control the access to APIs. It includes many other great features like authentication, rate limiting, request/response transformation, and traffic control. These leveraging functionalities makes the use if Kong management and monitoring of APIs at ease and also ensuring availability and performance.

Scalability of the Kong is easy to handle high volumes of API traffic when ee try again and again for certain specific use and it provides horizontal scalability features ad well. It mainly acts as a centralized entry point for the APIs, load balancing APIs is great among other. Also this capability improves the overall performance and reliability of API infrastructure.

Security Control of Kong involves robust security features to protect the APIs from unauthorized access and potential threats.

Kong API gateway has many features and is very useful. The upsides are high availability and a very reliable platform.

Nothing I can think of at the moment. Everything is gravy!

It serves as our front door to our applications, keeping everything secure.

Kong is a company that self-manages the progress and possibilities of the result for other companies, has a well-consolidated and justified API design, has tools for the protection of multiple threats and malicious viruses for our company, we have a communications panel, Prudent access control and formidable information traffic control.

We do not have system samples for long periods of time to test the software, nor less free versions that do not make your strategy system accessible to the client, it is considered that more information would be missing from the software and, therefore, would generate more confidence, and finally it has a slow interface but despite this well formulated and understandable.

Recommendations to others considering the product:

What problems are you solving with the product? What benefits have you realized?