We compared Microsoft Azure API Management and Kong Enterprise based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
Microsoft Azure API Management stands out for its customer service and variety of pricing options, providing flexibility and value for money. Meanwhile, Kong Enterprise excels in API management capabilities and advanced security features, with praised scalability and reliability. Users highlight the need for improvements in Azure's user interface and Kong's scaling capabilities.
Features: Microsoft Azure API Management is valued for its user-friendly interface, seamless integration, and excellent security measures. On the other hand, Kong Enterprise is praised for its exceptional API management capabilities, advanced security features, and comprehensive documentation.
Pricing and ROI: When comparing the setup cost of Microsoft Azure API Management and Kong Enterprise, user feedback shows that Azure API Management offers reasonable setup costs with a streamlined onboarding process. On the other hand, Kong Enterprise users have provided insights into the costs and ease of setup but no specific information on the setup cost itself., Microsoft Azure API Management has been praised for its positive ROI, with increased efficiency, scalability, cost savings, and improved API performance. Kong Enterprise also delivers favorable ROI, enhancing business outcomes, revenue growth, efficiency, scalability, cost savings, and customer experiences.
Room for Improvement: The Microsoft Azure API Management product could benefit from improvements in user experience, documentation, support, and performance. In contrast, Kong Enterprise could enhance its scaling capabilities, user interface, documentation, error handling, and performance optimization.
Deployment and customer support: The reviews of Microsoft Azure API Management indicate varying durations for deployment and setup, ranging from one week to three months. In contrast, the reviews for Kong Enterprise also show varied durations, with some users taking a week for deployment and setup, while others taking three months. The context in which these terms are used needs to be carefully evaluated for accurate evaluation., Microsoft Azure API Management has received positive feedback for its exceptional customer service, praised for its prompt and effective assistance. Users appreciate the knowledgeable and friendly support team. Kong Enterprise's customer service is highly praised too, with prompt and effective assistance and a friendly and knowledgeable support team.
The summary above is based on 50 interviews we conducted recently with Microsoft Azure API Management and Kong Enterprise users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"The solution provides good performance."
"In our buying companies' perspective, it was easier to use compared to other platforms. The markets were pretty familiar with the solutions."
"The tool's scalability is good...The solution's technical support is good."
"Kong enterprise has significantly enhanced our ability to manage and secure our Microservices. Its most valuable feature is monitoring."
"It boasts remarkable speed and stability, and these qualities, particularly the gateway's resilience, are standout features for me."
"The route limiting feature is very valuable."
"The most valuable feature of Kong Enterprise is its capability to integrate with various security tools."
"Kong Enterprise comes with some ready plug-ins, which is very good for the customers."
"Easy to integrate API management platform. It is a stable and scalable solution."
"It’s easy to set up."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure API Management is monitoring. When compared with Apigee, I prefer Microsoft Azure API Management."
"The solution is quite stable. We have no issues with it. there have been no crashes and we haven't experienced bugs or glitches. It's been quite reliable."
"I like the API Management functions."
"The ease of use of the solution is excellent."
"I like the support they provide for the APIs more than the solution itself. First of all, documentation-wise, both Microsoft Azure and even Google Cloud are up there. But in comparison, the real-time consulting and support for APIs make Microsoft stand out a little. I also like the performance. Standard public cloud provider-built APIs are more resilient and flexible in terms of what feature you want to use and what feature you don't want to use, and they're more customizable. They are more resilient in terms of performance in that particular environment because that is the design aspect of the offering. When public clouds build APIs and deploy them after testing them on their framework for a certain amount of time, I feel there is a massive difference in the product's performance. On the interface, everything is strong."
"I like that security features can be integrated with API Management. I also like that you can perform rate-limiting and throttling functions."
"We would like to see an automatic data API when we have a table in the database."
"We are facing issues with the solution's features like reports and traffic analysis."
"They could focus more on pricing."
"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."
"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 product's price is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"It becomes difficult if you try to scale it up to multiple clusters."
"They should improve the inbuilt policies that they have and that should properly create a deployment architecture as well."
"I would like to see more security features become available."
"In terms of improvement, it would be helpful if they could develop an on-premises option."
"The documentation could be improved for the customer."
"An area for improvement in Microsoft Azure API Management is deployment, in particular, the deployment of versions in Oryx. The development to production instance isn't adequate for me and needs to be improved. Microsoft Azure API Management lacks automation, which is another area for improvement."
"Performance issues from this platform need to be sorted out."
"Other products have more customization options."
"The hybrid part could be improved because API Management is entirely cloud-based, but some of our resources are on-prem, so formatting is an issue. Our goal is dual implementation."
More Microsoft Azure API Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Kong Gateway Enterprise is ranked 6th in API Management with 19 reviews while Microsoft Azure API Management is ranked 1st in API Management with 68 reviews. Kong Gateway Enterprise is rated 7.8, while Microsoft Azure API Management is rated 7.8. 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 Microsoft Azure API Management writes "Efficiently manages and monetizes API ". Kong Gateway Enterprise is most compared with WSO2 API Manager, Apigee, Apache APISIX, Layer7 API Management and MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, whereas Microsoft Azure API Management is most compared with Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, IBM API Connect and WSO2 API Manager. See our Kong Gateway Enterprise vs. Microsoft Azure API Management 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.