We performed a comparison between Kong Gateway Enterprise and SwaggerHub based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two API Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I like everything about it. It provides the security we need."
"The most valuable feature of Kong Enterprise is its capability to integrate with various security tools."
"The route limiting feature is very valuable."
"Kong Enterprise has excellent plugin support."
"This is a solid intrusion prevention system that combines a firewall and antivirus in a single solution."
"The tool's scalability is good...The solution's technical support is good."
"It boasts remarkable speed and stability, and these qualities, particularly the gateway's resilience, are standout features for me."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it seamlessly supports a vast number of tools."
"The most valuable features are the collaboration between multiple teams and the control and distribution of specifications."
"The tool's most valuable feature is licensing."
"Code generation is one of the important features of SwaggerHub. We design our API, and we can generate a very rich codebase and add to it. The code generation feature is very valuable."
"It is a stable solution."
"I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten."
"It is quite a useful tool. It is quite good with the validation of the spec. It works quite well in terms of errors and conformity to the OpenAPI standard. It is better than Visual Studio Code in terms of editing."
"The scalability is endless."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy and not at all difficult."
"Kong Enterprise has decided not to support the web portal feature anymore, but I think that feature should stay in the on-premises solution."
"Kong Enterprise can improve the customization to be able to do the integration properly."
"The OS upgrades are not as frequent as they should be and they are bulky."
"Kong Enterprise fails to provide live tracing of the APIs, which is possible nowadays."
"It becomes difficult if you try to scale it up to multiple clusters."
"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 technical support team's response time needs to be improved."
"We would like to see an automatic data API when we have a table in the database."
"It could be more intuitive compared to one of its competitors."
"The review process should be improved. There seem to be some gaps, at least for us, for the editing part because we would like to have a full request review mechanism. They support some comments, but it is really hard to manage those comments. We would like to use the full request. Therefore, we are now looking to integrate with repositories. It has integration with Bitbucket and GitHub, but we have some internal constraints, and we need to move some of the repositories to GitHub. Our source code is on-premise in Bitbucket, and it was a bit of a problem for us to integrate. Now we are transitioning our repositories to GitHub, and hopefully, we can enable the integration. This will probably solve the problem with the review and approval. Its customization should also be improved. There are limitations around the support for the developer portal. There should be more customization options for the website that you can use as a developer portal. Currently, it has only Swagger UI with minimal customization. You cannot actually add additional pages and documentation for explaining concepts and general things. That's why we have started to look around to see what other tools are doing. They should also allow tagging on the API. We would like to add some tagging on the API to reflect certain things. Currently, any metadata that you would like to have has to be a part of the spec. You cannot do anything else. It should also have support for Open API 3.1, which was released at the beginning of the year. It would be great to be able to switch to that."
"It has limited functionality...Unfortunately, some of its features are not what we need."
"More integration and usability with the cloud microservices would be nice"
"SwaggerHub lacks in terms of integrations. They have APIs integrated, and they also have some connectors, but they don't have integration with many of the things that we use. For example, for connecting with SVN, we had to implement external scripts. So, they should work on the integration because currently, we have to work on the integration with our DevOps, continuous delivery, or continuous deployment. It would be great if these integrations are built-in. Mainly, we would like it to integrate with SVN and Jira."
"SwaggerHub's UI needs to be improved as it looks very old school."
"We have to use additional tools to test APIs."
"SwaggerHub could be improved with better integration for tools."
Kong Gateway Enterprise is ranked 6th in API Management with 18 reviews while SwaggerHub is ranked 13th in API Management with 8 reviews. Kong Gateway Enterprise is rated 7.8, while SwaggerHub 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 SwaggerHub writes "An easy-to-use solution for the entry point of API documentation that needs to introduce some regulatory controls". Kong Gateway Enterprise is most compared with Microsoft Azure API Management, WSO2 API Manager, Apigee, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager and Apache APISIX, whereas SwaggerHub is most compared with Microsoft Azure API Management, Apigee, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, Amazon API Gateway and Apiary. See our Kong Gateway Enterprise vs. SwaggerHub 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.
