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 solution provides good performance."
"The tool's scalability is good...The solution's technical support is good."
"The route limiting feature is very valuable."
"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 enterprise has significantly enhanced our ability to manage and secure our Microservices. Its most valuable feature is monitoring."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it seamlessly supports a vast number of tools."
"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."
"In our buying companies' perspective, it was easier to use compared to other platforms. The markets were pretty familiar with the solutions."
"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."
"WSO2 is very stable."
"A complete integration suite and a good platform."
"Most of the time, we need to install a plug-in without having any lapse in services or restarting the application. The WSO2 platform can do all deployments without any downtime."
"It's a good product."
"The documentation is good."
"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 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."
"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."
"We would like to see an automatic data API when we have a table in the database."
"From an improvement perspective, the product should offer more readily available connectors and also allow for more seamless AI integrations."
"The tool needs improvement in UX."
"Kong Enterprise fails to provide live tracing of the APIs, which is possible nowadays."
"The user interface needs to improve, it is a bit outdated."
"WSO2 API Manager should improve its marketplace subscription model and documentation in order to reach a higher level in the market."
"The user interface could be a bit better."
"WSO2 API Manager can be improved a lot relating to usability"
"They don't have different URLs for administrators."
"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."
"Basically, mTLS is a certificate-based communication protocol that WSO2 API Manager doesn't support."
"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."
Kong Gateway Enterprise is ranked 6th in API Management with 20 reviews while WSO2 API Manager is ranked 8th 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, Apache APISIX, Layer7 API Management and MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, 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.
