We performed a comparison between Kong Gateway Enterprise and webMethods API Gateway 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."In our buying companies' perspective, it was easier to use compared to other platforms. The markets were pretty familiar with the solutions."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it seamlessly supports a vast number of tools."
"It boasts remarkable speed and stability, and these qualities, particularly the gateway's resilience, are standout features for me."
"Kong Enterprise has excellent plugin support."
"The most valuable features of Kong Enterprise are the out-of-the-box open source easy functionality."
"The most valuable feature of Kong Enterprise is its capability to integrate with various security tools."
"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."
"The tool's scalability is good...The solution's technical support is good."
"I like the solution's policies, transformation, mediation, and routing features."
"This solution has given us a competitive advantage because we have better automation and insight."
"The most valuable aspect of this solution for me has been the configuration-based UI. Once you get the hang of it, it enables you to easily develop an API. In addition, it has many in-built policies that are quite handy."
"The developer portal is a valuable feature."
"In the API gateway, there is a new feature that allows us to filter logs within a payload. This has been a useful feature."
"Within the new version, webMethods API Gateway gives us an end-to-end lifecycle from the creation of the API up into the development, deployment, and promotion into production/live. The current end-to-end lifecycle of the API gives us enough authority and governance of the API. We know what are currently live services, what is in the testing stage of development, and what version that has been commissioned. So, the full life cycle itself gives us full authority and governance of the API."
"The cloud version of the solution is very easy to set up."
"It's a good tool, and it has a stable messaging broker."
"Because it is open-source, it should be less expensive than others."
"There should be an easier way to integrate with other solutions, even though it's the same API solution layer. Comparability will be a good improvement."
"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."
"The tool needs improvement in UX."
"Kong Enterprise can improve the customization to be able to do the integration properly."
"The solution should include policy features that are available in other solutions like MuleSoft API manager but missing in Kong Enterprise."
"We would like to see an automatic data API when we have a table in the database."
"Understanding the configurations and knowing what needs to be done can be a bit difficult initially."
"In terms of improvements, maybe on the API monetization side, having users able to create separate consumption plans and throttle all those consumption plans towards the run time could be better."
"The price has room for improvement."
"With performance, there is room for improvement in regards to if we would like to put another extra layer of security on it, such as SSL. This is affecting their performance quite significantly. They need to improve the process of managing the SSL and other things inside their solutions, so there will not be quite such a significant impact to the performance."
"With respect to the API gateway, the runtime component, the stability after a new release is something that can be improved."
"There are things that could be improved with the webMethods API gateway. One thing is that it's too attached to the integration service and we'd like it to be a little bit more independent. We would like for them to separate operations so that it doesn't rely on the bulky integration server and so that it can be used everywhere."
"The configuring of the JWT token would be improved as it is a confusing process. We require more information on this part of the solution."
"They should develop clear visibility for the onboarding."
"It is an expensive solution and not very suitable for smaller businesses."
Kong Gateway Enterprise is ranked 6th in API Management with 18 reviews while webMethods API Gateway is ranked 12th in API Management with 9 reviews. Kong Gateway Enterprise is rated 7.8, while webMethods API Gateway 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 webMethods API Gateway writes "We developed several services in the cloud using a sandbox environment for our last hackathon". Kong Gateway Enterprise is most compared with Microsoft Azure API Management, WSO2 API Manager, Apigee and MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, whereas webMethods API Gateway is most compared with Apigee, webMethods.io Integration, webMethods Microgateway, CentraSite and 3scale API Management. See our Kong Gateway Enterprise vs. webMethods API Gateway 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.