APISIX vs Kong
Both solid. Different tradeoffs. Pick the one that fits your team.
Kong has the bigger plugin catalogue. APISIX has the better latency profile and cleaner cost model. For most cost-led startups we lean APISIX. We will tell you when Kong fits better.
TL;DR
- Both Apache 2.0 OSS gateways with paid commercial tiers.
- Kong has the larger plugin ecosystem (Kong Hub) and stronger service mesh story (Kong Mesh).
- APISIX is faster (NGINX + Lua), cheaper at scale, and ASF-governed (no single-vendor risk).
Side by side
The axes that change the answer.
| Axis | APISIX | Kong Gateway |
|---|---|---|
| Governance | Apache Software Foundation | Kong Inc. (open core + Konnect SaaS) |
| Performance | Exceptional (NGINX + Lua) | Strong |
| Plugin ecosystem | Growing, focused | Larger (Kong Hub) |
| Service mesh | Via APISIX Mesh, less mature | Kong Mesh, mature |
| Cost predictability | High (no surprise SaaS bill) | Variable (Konnect SaaS pricing) |
| Cloud-native posture | etcd-based, K8s-native | Postgres or DB-less, both supported |
When APISIX wins
- Cost predictability is a hard constraint
- Latency is the headline metric (edge / ingress)
- You want pure ASF governance, no single vendor
- Kubernetes-first, etcd already in the stack
When Kong Gateway wins
- You need a specific Kong Hub plugin that has no APISIX equivalent
- You are standardising on Kong Mesh for service mesh
- Kong's enterprise support contract is a procurement requirement
The honest verdict
What we tell customers.
For startups optimising for cost and raw performance with a small ops team, APISIX is the lower-friction choice and that is the call we make most often. For teams already standardised on Kong Mesh or that need a specific plugin from Kong Hub, Kong wins on its own terms.
Other APISIX comparisons
Keep reading.
Want a second opinion on this specifically for your stack?
We have shipped on every platform on this page. Honest call, even if it points away from APISIX.