We use Kong for our API gateway, handling all public traffic. It is an open-source tool, and even though we are a startup, it provides us with stability without incurring high costs initially.

Kong has helped us by performing smoothly even when we receive millions of requests, which prevents any latency issues impacting our applications. We have also been able to enhance security by writing our own plugins and easily integrating with various tools and platforms.

Kong's most valuable features are its lightweight performance when handling millions of requests and the ability to write custom plugins to enhance security, such as end-to-end encryption, even in the open-source version.

The open-source version of Kong does not support a dashboard, which would be very helpful. We use an open-source tool called Konga for basic dashboard needs, but it lacks support. It would be better if there was a comprehensive dashboard included in the open-source community version.

We have been using Kong for about five years.

Initially, we faced stability issues during an upgrade process due to migration problems with the schema. However, Kong has improved significantly, and maintaining stability is easier now when following their improved documentation and using Helm for deployment.

We've put in place SPA auto-scaling within our Kubernetes deployment, which efficiently handles increased traffic by automatically spinning up new pods, ensuring smooth scalability.

I am currently using a new gateway called Tyk. However, Kong is far better as an open-source tool.

Kong's pricing is reasonable, as the open-source version provides sufficient functionality for a startup like ours without requiring a high initial investment.

We evaluated Tyke as a new gateway solution.

If you are looking for a stable open-source gateway, Kong is a solid choice. It performs well under high traffic with low latency. For newcomers, it is advisable to explore its robust features and ability to manage high TPS effectively.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I use the solution in my company since we build our own products by using Spring Boot, Python and FastAPI. We mainly use the tool to monitor and provide security on top of those APIs.

The most valuable features of the solution are proxies and API monetization.

The tool needs to improve in areas like documentation and UI. The product needs to have good documentation and a good UI where we can see the other features. It was difficult for our company to understand the document when we needed to do some research and development work, which was some sort of a challenge we faced earlier. The tool should put efforts into the documentation, which can help the developer to develop products that the community is going to use in the future.

Additional features like offering good analytics performance and enhancing Kong Gateway Enterprise with GenAI capabilities can be helpful.

I have been using Kong Gateway Enterprise since 2018. I do not remember the tool's version. My company operates as an implementor and service provider of the tool.

In terms of stability, the tool's team has made some good efforts, and my company is very happy with the product's approach.

I rate the stability an eight to nine out of ten.

At the moment, we have ten people using the tool. Before COVID-19, we had a great team of around thirty members. Currently, we have a small team.

Scalability is part of the product. When we deploy the tool on any cloud, Docker supports the scaling process, both horizontally and vertically.

Basically, my company uses the tool's open-source version. I don't think we connected with any of the technical team members of the tool. We will get in touch with the team only if we go with the licensing model.

I have used Apigee, WSO2, and Microsoft's API gateway, along with some commercial tools like MuleSoft and Boomi. The tools were used as a part of the implementations done for our customers.

Considering that my company has experience with other products that are similar to Kong Gateway Enterprise, I can say that there is only a difference of a percentage or two between all the solutions, making it all the same for our organization.

I am an enterprise architect who is involved in everything from design to deployment.

For the product's initial setup phase, my company has a DevOps team that implements the APIs. The DevOps teams take care of containerization and ensure that everything is connected, which is like a general life cycle in any project. All the different teams, like the development teams, DevOps teams, admin teams, and DB teams, don't see any issues in the tool because all of the implementations are taken care of by all the teams. My company did not work with the team from Kong Gateway Enterprise.

Our organization supports Docker and containerization, so our company can put in some stuff related to Kong Gateway Enterprise outside of Docker containers.

My company chose the open-source model of the tool.

My company evaluated Kong Gateway Enterprise against WSO2, after which we started using it.

The performance and speed of the gateways created with the tool are both good.

My company used one or two plugins that Kong made available for Kong Gateway Enterprise.

If I were to assess Kong Gateway Enterprise for its speed of innovation through its version updates, I would say that it is a good tool. Its features are the reason why we shortlisted it as an open-source API management solution.

I did not check if the design of the gateway infrastructure helps achieve high gateway uptime. We have our own product, where we are developing a lot of APIs, and we want to deploy them through a gateway that takes care of routing and security. That was the intention that could stop not going with commercial tools like the Apigee or Microsoft's API gateway. My company thought of choosing Kong Gateway Enterprise to containerize and deploy our products.

The ease of the tool's update process is good.

I did not work with Kong Gateway Enterprise's team when my company was in the transition phase. We referred to the documentation.

I recommend the tool to others.

I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

Within Kong Gateway Enterprise, we utilize Kong Ingress and the Com API Gateway. It offers a wide range of plugins that we leverage, including OIDC, Rate Limiting, Lambda functions, and more. We also configure multiple deployments and utilize plugins like the OIDC Registration plugin for authentication and authorization. Additionally, we ensure schema validation for incoming requests and utilize security scanning. Kong Gateway provides a Request Transformer plugin that allows us to add or remove header values as needed.

Upgrading Kong Gateway Enterprise should be more sophisticated and innovative. The main issue is with the update process. Our DevOps and admin teams need to update multiple files, which is cumbersome. For instance, in cases where Palantir countries are involved, they have to update many files, which is not ideal. However, for other tasks like configuring the message routing and services and handling all the configurations, the process is acceptable.

The software version upgrade process should be improved. Additionally, the DevOps portal should be integrated more natively. There are a few other areas for improvement, such as implementing automatic load balancing. The status of the office team, whether it is up or down, should be checked at the API gateway level to facilitate load balancing. 

I have been using Kong Gateway Enterprise as a partner for three years.

It is scalable. 5,000 people are using this solution. We need 10 administrators to manage this solution.

When architects work, there should be some flexibility. We are currently receiving support from both the AWS and the Kong sites. You can raise the ticket immediately on the AWS site, and people will get involved quickly. However, Kong's support is not as good. They tend to have market delays, and tickets are not addressed promptly, which is a problem with Kong's support. I can give 75 points out of 100.

There are multiple options in the market, such as Apigee. We opted for Kong because it's scalable to meet our needs and integrates well with our technical stack. Therefore, we recommend adopting it quickly.

We had to develop the image for Kong Gateway Enterprise. In AWS, there's a concept of imaging, so we needed to focus on that. We must scan the image for security and ensure all necessary measures are in place. Therefore, we must first create the image and proceed with deployment and other related tasks.

Pricing is fine.

We use plugins for Kong Gateway for authorization and authentication. It supports connectivity with IDP providers to enable authentication and authorization. There are request plugins available to handle validation and inspect incoming requests. Most importantly, the OIDC plugin, consumer plugin, rate limiting plugin, schema validation plugin, and request validation plugin are some of the key plugins.

Version upgrades should be more sophisticated and innovative. Currently, the upgrade process lacks efficiency and could be improved. Previous versions required significant effort to update and should be made easier. The process needs to be streamlined, reducing the complexity and number of steps involved.

High gateway uptime is okay. It ensures high uptime for your gateways, although some latency may occur due to the added layer of processing. The benefits of using a gateway, such as enhanced security and control, outweigh the drawbacks. The gateway acts as an intermediary, preventing direct access to microservices by requiring traffic to pass through it. This setup enables features like authorization and authentication, including integration with IDPs. The gateway can handle these processes before forwarding requests to the microservices.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.