I use Kong Konnect as a centralized API gateway solution that helps provide API solutions on a cloud platform. In my organization, Kong Konnect has been implemented with different solutions using AWS as a cloud provider. The deployment was accomplished using Terraform as an automation tool, with the data plane deployed on ECS EC2, connecting it to the control plane while managing configuration changes through Terraform.

Kong Konnect provides centralized API management, which means there is one place to manage all the APIs. It has a good plugin subsystem with built-in plugins for authentication, logging, and rate limiting, plus a hybrid architecture with a SaaS control plane and a data plane that can fit on Kubernetes, ECS, or any container solution.

Authentication, rate limiting, logging, and routing plugins are mainly used, which helps save costs by reducing engineering time to configure authentication since the plugins come with provided configuration settings that work immediately. Kong Konnect has helped save costs in terms of resources and reduced engineering time with the help of its plugins and authentication features, providing good scalability with the data plane being independent and improving developer productivity due to pre-built plugins for authentication and throttling.

The adoption of Kong Konnect has significantly helped reduce engineering time, allowing focus to shift from building logic for authentications and logging to more efficient operations, especially with high workload traffic.

The learning curve is the first issue when starting with Kong Konnect, as understanding the concepts such as services, routes, plugins, and the control and data planes takes time. Debugging complexity arises from issues that can occur at any layer including gateways, plugins, and upstream services. I chose a rating of 8.5 for Kong Konnect because of the debugging complexity, which is an area that could see improvements.

I have using Kong Konnect just recently for seven to eight months.

Kong Konnect is stable.

Kong Konnect exhibits good scalable architecture with its two different planes: the data plane and the central one hosted on Kubernetes, ECS, or a container platform, making it very scalable.

The customer support is good.

I did not previously use a different solution.

Kong Konnect was purchased through the AWS Marketplace. The experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing was quite good as the licenses were taken from the marketplace.

Although specific numbers are not available, Kong Konnect helps save resources since fewer engineers are needed to work on this, allowing very few resources to manage it.

Specific numbers have not been provided.

The experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing was quite good as the licenses were taken from the marketplace.

Other options were not evaluated before choosing Kong Konnect. A couple of documentation reviews were conducted and Kong itself was targeted.

Kong Konnect should be considered as a good tool for API management that should be adopted. I would rate Kong Konnect an 8.5 overall.

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

I have been using Kong Konnect for the last year, and it has been a great experience. Mostly, I use it as part of our API testing and integration workflows. I was not directly involved in setting it up, but I have been consistently using it while testing microservices that were exposed through Kong Konnect gateway. Over time, I became quite comfortable with how it impacts authentication and overall API behavior, especially while debugging failures in staging and CI pipelines.

The main use case for me in Kong Konnect is API testing. From my perspective as an SDET, I use it as a centralized API gateway for all our microservices. Instead of hitting services directly, all our requests are routed through Kong Konnect, which handles authentication, request routing, and rate limiting perfectly. For us in testing, it became important because we had to validate not just the API responses, but also gateway-level behaviors, such as whether the correct authentication policies were enforced and if requests were being throttled properly under load. In my company, the load is really high, so Kong Konnect provides a very reliable mechanism to maintain good uptime and quality for the APIs for our clients.

One specific way I used it was while writing and debugging API test cases for services that are behind Kong Konnect. I was validating authentication flows and rate limiting, and I used ChatGPT to quickly draft different request variations, such as how to structure headers and tokens. Then I used Kong Konnect to test that.

Another use case I can think of is that we started focusing more on gateway-level validations after using Kong Konnect, such as verifying authorization failures, handling of invalid tokens, and observing how rate limiting behaves under repeated requests. This actually improved our negative and edge case coverage quite a bit. Overall, interacting with Kong Konnect made our testing approach more aligned with real production scenarios rather than just isolated API validations.

As an SDET, I found that the best features of Kong Konnect are the centralized API management, where all the services are exposed through a single gateway layer. It made it much easier for us to validate APIs consistently instead of dealing with multiple service endpoints. Another important feature was analytics. Having visibility into API traffic and failures helped us to debug issues faster, especially in CI pipelines where it is sometimes hard to trace failures.

Analytics in Kong Konnect helped us mainly in debugging and identifying patterns in failures. Using these patterns, we have generated outcomes showing where our APIs exactly failed in edge case scenarios. For example, during regression runs in CI, if a set of API tests started failing intermittently, instead of directly assuming it was a backend issue, I used the gateway-level analytics to check request counts, error rates, and response statuses. In a couple of cases, I noticed spikes in 429 errors, which indicated rate limiting was kicking in. The issue was not the service logic but the gateway policy. That saved us a lot of time in root cause analysis. Overall, analytics gave us better visibility of the failures in our current system.

More specifically, another feature I could think of is authentication, logging, and rate limiting. These things could be handled at the gateway level instead of being implemented separately in each service. This is what I liked the most. From a testing standpoint, it actually reduced duplication and made our validations more consistent across APIs. One more thing I noticed was that these configurations could be updated without major code changes, so testing becomes really easy. It helped us to quickly test different scenarios in staging without waiting for full deployments because the code changes are not very major; they are minor code changes.

Kong Konnect requires some improvement, but overall the experience is quite positive. One thing I can think of currently is around debugging visibility. While I know that the analytics are helpful, sometimes getting very detailed request-level insights during failures, especially in CI runs, required additional digging. A bit more granular and easily accessible logs would make troubleshooting faster. Also, in some cases, configuration changes were not immediately intuitive to validate from a testing standpoint. Having better tooling or previews to simulate how a policy change would impact API behavior could be useful. Nothing major, but these kinds of improvements would make it even more efficient for teams, especially our teams, which heavily rely on automation and CI pipelines.

Better integration visibility with CI/CD tools would make it easier to quickly correlate test failures and gateway behavior without switching between multiple dashboards. This should be improved.

In my current field, I have been working for more than 3.5 years, and I am going to complete close to four years in my current domain of testing.

Kong Konnect is stable. In my company, the product that I am involved in is very API-heavy. In day-to-day testing and CI runs, we did not face frequent outages and major disruptions. Most of the time, the gateway handled routing and policies reliably, even during heavy regression cycles and heavy customer throughput. One thing I noticed is that even if there are occasional issues at the control plane level, the data plane continues to function using cached configurations, so API traffic is not impacted immediately. Overall, I would say it is a stable platform, especially for production-scale API traffic and for companies like HighLevel where the products are very much API-heavy.

From what I have seen recently, Kong Konnect is quite scalable, especially in a microservices-based setup. In our case, even during heavy regression runs or higher traffic scenarios, we did not notice major performance bottlenecks. The gateway was able to handle concurrent requests quite efficiently. Also, from what I understand, it supports auto-scaling of gateway nodes, especially in cloud setups, which helps it adjust dynamically based on traffic spikes without manual intervention. Overall, it scales well both horizontally and across environments, which is important when you are dealing with multiple services and high API traffic.

I am not personally involved in customer support. Whenever issues were raised, especially through support tickets, they were escalated and our internal system takes care of those issues. What I have seen is that the response time was generally quick, and most of our queries were resolved within a reasonable time frame. In some cases, critical issues were addressed within a few hours, which really helped during our testing cycles.

Before Kong Konnect, our setup was more direct. We did not use any centralized API management layer. Each service handled authentication and routing on its own, which made testing a bit inconsistent because different services had slightly different implementations. In some cases, we also had basic reverse proxy setups, but they did not provide the kind of flexibility or features that Kong Konnect offers, such as plugin-based policies or detailed analytics. Moving to Kong Konnect helped standardize a lot of those aspects and made our testing approach more structured.

I do not have experience with pricing, but I do have experience with setup and licensing. I did not have direct involvement in the pricing or licensing decision for Kong Konnect, as those were handled more at the management or DevOps level. From what I understood through internal discussions, the pricing was considered reasonable for the value it provides, especially given the centralized API management and flexibility it offers. In terms of setup, since Kong Konnect was already integrated into our AWS environment when I started, the onboarding from a tester's perspective was fairly smooth. I could start interacting with the APIs through the gateway without much back-and-forth.

From that standpoint, the core of it is that our debugging time during regression cycles reduced roughly by 25% to 30%, mainly because the gateway layer helped us quickly identify whether issues were coming from authentication policies, rate limiting, throttling, or the backend services. Because the debugging time has been reduced, the number of people that are required for doing that debugging and regression has also been improved. I sensed a 30% reduction in the effort. I have seen it myself in the employees needed to do a particular project.

These particular decisions are mostly taken by upper management level people, so I was not directly involved in evaluating which solution would work the best. I believe tools such as Apigee and AWS API Gateway were among the ones explored, mainly because they are quite common in the API management space. Eventually, Kong Konnect was chosen because of its flexibility, plugin-based architecture, and how well it fits in our microservice setup.

One piece of advice I can give is that instead of using traditional methods of API management, Kong Konnect provides a very reliable solution for centralized API management. Because APIs and backend services are the backbone of any product, if these are scaled in a better way, then that is the main thing. One piece of advice I would give is to clearly understand your API ecosystem first before adopting Kong Konnect because it works really well in a microservice architecture. To get the most value, you need to have a clear idea of how your services interact and what kind of gateway policies you want to enforce. From a testing standpoint, it is important to design test cases not just for API functionality but also for gateway-level scenarios such as authentication failures, throttling, and routing behavior. That is something teams sometimes overlook initially. If these things are taken care of, then Kong Konnect will be a very useful product for companies which are heavily reliant on APIs. I have provided a rating of 9 out of 10 for this review.

Hybrid Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

My main use case for Kong Konnect is routing to different backends and implementing enhanced security. For security purposes in my day-to-day work, we are currently implementing security features that Kong Konnect offers, such as API keys.

The best features Kong Konnect offers are ease of use and scalability.

When I mention scalability, it means that when we experience peak traffic, Kong made it easy for us to scale and spawn new machines.

Kong Konnect has positively impacted my organization by making our development easier and helping us push new routes to our current customers. It made development easier because we used to need to deploy the route everywhere, but now we can deploy at once and everything works.

Kong Konnect needs improvement in the UI. The fields are unclear about what they do, and the UI for the Dev Portal is rough around the edges.

I have been using Kong Konnect for four years.

Kong Konnect is stable.

Scalability is great with Kong Konnect.

Customer support for Kong Konnect is fantastic, and I have no complaints.

Positive

We did not previously use a different solution.

I was not part of the decision regarding the experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing.

I was not part of the decision regarding the experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing.

I have seen a return on investment with Kong Konnect. Time saved is a relevant metric; it used to take us a week, but now it takes us only a day.

We evaluated MuleSoft before choosing Kong Konnect.

My advice for others looking into using Kong Konnect is to try it because it is a great product. I give Kong Konnect a rating of 9 out of 10.

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

I have experience with both Apigee and Kong API Gateway. I have migrated from Apigee to Kong Konnect for organizations.

I am working currently with Kong Konnect SaaS Enterprise, which is the SaaS version of Kong. I have also worked on Kong Gateway Enterprise.

With Kong Konnect, AWS is the provider by default. However, the gateway runtime can be installed anywhere, the Kong Gatewa runtime also called the Kong Data Plane is platform agnostic. It does not have to be in AWS. It can be in Azure or on-prem as well.

Kong has been working on their documentation. They have developed a separate portal for the documentation. They are trying to improve that.

Their tech support is excellent. When I raise an incident or a support ticket, it got answered in four hours.

When comparing documentation, Kong's documentation is not on par with Google, Amazon, or other cloud providers. If a new person joins a team and wants to start using Kong's product and their associated tools, they would find it difficult initially compared to Google, Amazon, or Microsoft products, or even Azure from the deployment perspective. Kong has been working on their documentation and has developed a separate portal for the documentation. They are trying to improve that area.

I have been using both Kong Konnect and Kong Gateway Enterprise for three years at the level of API Technical Architect.

Kong Konnect includes managed and self-hosted runtimes, allowing different business units to independently control their gateways while maintaining central governance, security, and logging policies.

Their tech support is excellent. When I raise an incident or a support ticket, it gets answered in four hours.

Positive

One thing to keep in mind is Kong Konnect has professional services which often gets involved in the initial phases of implementation. Their professional services are very expensive. That is one reason why a client should hire an API technical architect to get things done because I am much more cost-effective than the professional services team.

Significant improvement in the performance of APIs.

It is more suitable to purchase Kong license from Kong vendors, not from the cloud marketplace because the cloud marketplace has a limitation on the number of API services it supports. If the customer has many APIs, it is always better to go through the vendor route to purchase the license.

I would rate Kong Konnect 8.5 out of 10.

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

I use Kong Konnect as an API Gateway or API management solution. I have several use cases, including securing internal APIs within Siemens network by deploying Kong Gateway on Amazon EKS. This acts as an API management layer to expose other internal services such as logging and Jira APIs. Additionally, I utilize it for external use cases by deploying an API Gateway for consumers accessing services from the internet. My aim is to create a federated API management platform where various business units can still use their preferred choice of gateways while maintaining a central federation layer to control security and logging policies.

Kong Konnect is a SaaS version of Kong Gateway, and it offers a hybrid deployment. The configuration can be controlled centrally via the SaaS offering, and each team can manage their own gateway or runtime part. It is lightweight, suitable for smaller use cases without heavy initial costs, and comes in various flavors such as open source and enterprise. The documentation is excellent, and it includes a developer portal, which helps create a common distribution channel for APIs within and outside the enterprise.

Kong Konnect's RBAC needs to evolve more, as they currently offer only one or two levels of RBAC in terms of organization and teams. Additionally, the licensing model could be simplified, especially in how they charge and track usage. There are also some technical restrictions around exposing GRPC APIs, but I have not explored this yet.

I have been working with Kong Konnect for the last six or seven months.

The deployment is straightforward because it's a hybrid model. The control plane is a SaaS offering, so there's not much difficulty there.

The solution is stable.

The platform is fully scalable, providing various ways to manage data planes or runtimes. They offer managed runtimes, but it's preferred that consumers manage their own runtime, which can be deployed in a containerized manner.

The technical support from Kong is satisfactory.

Neutral

I was previously using Azure Logic Apps but moved to Kong API Gateway. This decision was influenced by the need to create a service around Kong API Gateway with a federated API management platform.

The initial setup is very straightforward due to its hybrid deployment model, with the configuration and control plane managed as a SaaS offering.

I have not yet seen a return on investment because the project is still in its early stages.

While the pricing model isn't very clear on how usage is tracked, the initial cost and setup for using Kong Konnect are reasonable.

The knowledge base provided by Kong is excellent, offering various learning paths not just for the technical aspects of Kong Konnect, but also for innovation within the application. It's a highly customizable platform. I would rate Kong Konnect an eight overall.

Hybrid Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)