We use it to provide API services to our clients.
External reviews
278 reviews
from
and
External reviews are not included in the AWS star rating for the product.
Overall okay satisfied
What do you like best about the product?
Easy to use and manage.
Api can be setup easily
Fast Api in case of any pass through
Api can be setup easily
Fast Api in case of any pass through
What do you dislike about the product?
Should have more features like transformation as in integration field only having gateway.
What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
Providing us a gateway easy to use and manage help of integrate pass through APIs
I have worked with Kong for building API Gateways, LB.
What do you like best about the product?
Ease of use, easy to maintain API's. I have used KONG Gateway for Springboot application, it's easy to make api's for my application. Integration of APIs.
What do you dislike about the product?
I don't have anything much ti dislike in Kong.
What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
It makes my life easy by handling all the API's with a single endpoint Gateway.
extensive customization, enabling it to fit diverse use cases
What do you like best about the product?
Kong Gateway’s improved support for hybrid deployments and declarative config with decK makes scaling and automation easier. I also like the enhanced UI and seamless integration with service mesh via Kuma.
What do you dislike about the product?
debugging plugin issues can be tricky due to limited error transparency.
What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
Best use with micro services
User-friendly developer portal but licensing model changes for each geography
What is our primary use case?
What is most valuable?
The features I like include ease of operation and implementation in a cloud environment, the dashboarding features for API statistics, and the user-friendly developer portal.
The plugin architecture is simple and easy to implement.
What needs improvement?
There is room for improvement in the licensing model. It charges differently for each geography. If I have to use Kong in two different geographies for the same organization, it charges me twice. When it comes to Azure, it doesn't charge me twice. Azure has a more economical model.
The licensing in the Middle East, where we work. The licensing of Kong and Azure is a lengthy process. It was not readily available. We had to talk to the product owner to make the Kong Gateway available as a solution on the Azure marketplace. The licensing is only as an on-prem or separate product.
The difference between billing on the cloud and outside the cloud is if I purchase Kong outside, I have to pay the AMC every year or so. The purpose of cloud implementation is to have a consolidated billing for all resources purchased on the cloud. You don't need to deal with multiple vendors. If you have purchased five applications on the cloud marketplace, you get a single consolidated bill every month.
The ease of billing is lost when Kong is not available directly on the Azure marketplace. This is one area where they can improve. There could be a problem with the Middle East geography. They may have Kong available on the Azure marketplace in other geographies, but this is how it is in the Middle East.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using it for two and a half years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
It is a very stable product.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten, with one being one scalability and ten being high.
The scalability aspect has a limitation with geography. I can expand it to any country within one region, but not beyond. There are licensing implications.
Technologically, it is scalable to whatever extent required, without any limitations. The limitation is only across geography. It cannot be scaled beyond one region.
There are around 25 technical people using this solution in my organization. We use it daily.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
Kong is the first API solution we used. We started API solutions with Kong.
How was the initial setup?
I would rate my experience with the initial setup a six out of ten, with one being difficult and ten being easy.
The first implementation took three months.
What about the implementation team?
The deployment was done by a vendor.
What was our ROI?
Kong Gateway doesn't save anything, actually. It is not for that purpose. It's a technological solution, we cannot directly attribute revenue to Kong alone. Multiple applications work together to offer the APIs, and those API solutions have brought in some revenue, but not entirely because of Kong, so I cannot quantify that.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
The licensing is expensive. I would rate the pricing an eight out of ten, with one being cheap and ten being expensive.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
Our parent organization has been using Kong and evaluated all the possibilities. We took their reference. Recently, we did an evaluation and migrated to Azure API Management from Kong.
What other advice do I have?
I would recommend using it. It is a very powerful tool with lots of features. It's stable, user-friendly, and easy to learn.
Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
Public Cloud
Used for managing microservices and in-built APIs, but the technical support team's response time could be improved
What is our primary use case?
We use the solution for managing microservices and in-built APIs.
What is most valuable?
Kong Enterprise has induced the API governance we need for our banking operations. It has increased the security and improved the gateway features such as rate limiting, throttling, and security.
The most valuable feature of Kong Enterprise is its capability to integrate with various security tools. For OAuth implementation, we connect it to the external OAuth providers. Some inbuilt out-of-the-box features of the solution, like API key generation and usage of client credentials, are also very good.
What needs improvement?
The technical support team's response time needs to be improved. Kong Enterprise should improve its resiliency when it comes to the active DR setup.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using Kong Enterprise for more than six months.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
Kong Enterprise is a stable solution.
I rate the solution an eight out of ten for stability.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Kong Enterprise has seamless scalability. Around 240 developers are working with the solution in our organization, and we are planning to increase our usage.
I rate the solution a nine out of ten for scalability.
How are customer service and support?
The technical support team's response time needs to be improved. The support engineer's capability should be improved because we have to induct them often regarding the problem. A lot of data needs to be provided before they start looking into the problem.
How would you rate customer service and support?
Neutral
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
We previously used TIBCO and MuleSoft.
How was the initial setup?
The solution’s initial setup was easy.
What about the implementation team?
Since we are a financial institution, setting up and onboarding the solution took around one and a half months. It took some time to go through all the security and run through the different stakeholders.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
Kong Enterprise's pricing is at par compared to the other technologies.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
Before choosing Kong Enterprise, we evaluated Tyk. We chose Kong Enterprise because we felt it was more secure than Tyk.
What other advice do I have?
Kong Enterprise is a gateway that we leverage. From an API security perspective, it has excellent features. We have used a couple of plugins, such as the OIDC plugin and rate-limiting plugin, for our APIs. Our experience with the plugins has been pretty good, and they solve the purpose of security. Since Kong Enterprise is just a gateway, the onboarding services were very seamless. I rate the solution five out of ten for integration.
Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
Public Cloud
If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
An easy-to-integrate tool with good scalability features
What is our primary use case?
My company gave Kong Enterprise to only one company in the manufacturing sector, and now we are in talks with another manufacturing company.
Kong Enterprise is very useful, especially for IoT applications. Palo Alto Networks is also good for IoT applications. Kong Enterprise has a great licensing model. I am scanning capabilities, making it a good tool for infrastructures.
What needs improvement?
In comparison to Fortinet, Kong Enterprise fails to offer a huge number of ports in lower models of the solution. From an improvement perspective, the number of ports in lower models of the solution should be made available.
The GUI of the product is not very user-friendly, making it in areas where improvements are required. In Fortinet, the GUI allows users to deal directly with the configuration part.
The product's price is an area of concern where improvements are required.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have experience with Kong Enterprise.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.
High-end models are available for large-scale businesses, but the same models are not available for small or medium-sized businesses.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
The tool's scalability is good.
My company has around 300 to 500 users of the product.
How are customer service and support?
The solution's technical support is good.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
I have experience with SonicWall and Fortinet. I chose Kong Enterprise since it is better in areas like throughput. The tool is also not easily vulnerable and provides patch updates.
How was the initial setup?
The product's initial setup phase was straightforward.
The deployment process was good. The product could be deployed in two to three hours.
Around seven to ten people, consisting of managers, engineers, managers, and developers, take care of the deployment and maintenance of the product.
What about the implementation team?
The product can be deployed with the help of our company's in-house members.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
There is a need to pay towards the licensing charges. My company also needs to make payments to use SD-WAN, which is usually an in-built feature in other products. In some areas, the functionalities are available free of charge.
What other advice do I have?
In our organization's workflow, we use Kong Enterprise since it helps the research and development team to check for certain updates, send patches, and scan for viruses, making it a good product.
Kong Enterprise's plug-in systems have enhanced our company's API management solution since they allow users to generate reports easily. My company hasn't worked to a great extent with the API management part of the tool.
The full-fledged features of the product are only available in the high-end models. For small and medium-sized businesses, not many ports are available for use. In SonicWall, if you take one box with the full software subscription and get another box with no software subscription, it would still offer HA, but in Palo Alto Networks, both boxes have to be the same.
I recommended the product to those who plan to use it.
I rate the ability of Kong Enterprise to match our organizational demands in terms of performance and scalability at a seven to eight out of ten.
It is easy to integrate Kong Enterprise with existing systems and infrastructures.
The benefit of using the solution is that I feel my network is more secure.
I rate the overall tool a seven out of ten.
I use kong for production applications
What do you like best about the product?
It has all the features for terminating ssl, rate limiting and also all the metrics
What do you dislike about the product?
Learning curve. And othen than that i don't have anything
What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
it has the UI to manage configuration
Build on Kubernetes Microservices
What do you like best about the product?
It's able to be built on kubernetes microservices, interested in Kong Mesh, not sure how it stacks up to istio service mesh though.
What do you dislike about the product?
Setting up Kong and configuring it for specific use cases can be complex. There is a bit of a learning curves for DevOps and Developers as well with its rich-ehancement features.
What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
Moving from monolith to microservices
An unbeatable combination of security, scalability, and flexibility
What do you like best about the product?
I am thoroughly impressed with the commitment to security demonstrated by Kong API Gateway. Additionally, its ability to scale on-demand and the wide range of plugins it offers, along with their ease of integration, have greatly optimized our API management tasks.
What do you dislike about the product?
Troubleshooting issues with the Kong API can be quite difficult, but offering more descriptive error messages will greatly enhance the process and deliver substantial advantages for users of this software.
What problems is the product solving and how is that benefiting you?
The Kong API Gateway has effectively solved our problems with API security, handling high traffic, and customization. Its wide range of features allows us to consistently deliver seamless API experiences.
The solution can be used for load-balancing, caching, and rate-limiting APIs, but its reports and traffic analysis could be improved
What is most valuable?
We have already registered a couple of APIs in Kong Community, and we are exposing those Kong APIs to our product. ITMS services will be consuming those APIs from Kong. We use the solution for load-balancing, caching, and rate-limiting APIs.
What needs improvement?
If Kong provides a 30-day license like other API gateways, we can promote the solution to more customers because they are willing to use it. We are unable to showcase the security and functional features during the trial period, which is an issue for us. We are facing issues with the solution's features like reports and traffic analysis.
For how long have I used the solution?
We have been using the solution for more than one year.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
I rate the solution a seven out of ten for stability.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Around 20 users are using the solution in our organization.
I rate the solution a six out of ten for scalability.
How was the initial setup?
The solution's initial setup is very easy.
What other advice do I have?
With Kong Enterprise, we are facing challenges in getting the trial license, reports, and traffic analysis. We have one customer onboarded, but we need to demonstrate to them the features, and we need to migrate from IBM One Gateway to Kong.
The solution is deployed on the cloud.
Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.
showing 11 - 20