Ambassador vs Kong vs Traefik: What are the differences?

Comparison of Ambassador, Kong, and Traefik

Introduction

In the world of microservices and API gateways, Ambassador, Kong, and Traefik are three popular solutions. While all three serve a similar purpose, there are several key differences between them that are worth considering.

1. Flexibility of Configuration: Ambassador provides a declarative configuration approach using YAML files, allowing users to define the desired state of their systems. Kong, on the other hand, offers a RESTful Admin API for dynamic configuration. Traefik combines both approaches, allowing configuration through static files as well as dynamic providers such as file, Docker, and Kubernetes.

2. Routing and Load Balancing: Ambassador primarily focuses on L7 (application layer) routing and supports advanced routing features such as path rewriting, traffic splitting, and timeout customization. Kong also offers L7 routing capabilities but emphasizes on plugins for various functionalities. Traefik excels in L7 routing with built-in support for service discovery and circuit breakers.

3. Scalability and High Availability: Kong and Traefik both provide native solutions for high availability and scaling. Kong can be deployed as a cluster with multiple instances, ensuring fault tolerance and load balancing. Traefik uses a distributed key-value store and supports automatic hot-reload of configurations, enabling seamless scaling and failover. Ambassador currently relies on external tools like Kubernetes to achieve scalability and high availability.

4. Community and Ecosystem: Kong boasts a large and active community, with a wide range of community-contributed plugins and integrations available. Traefik also has a vibrant community and benefits from being an early adopter of the Docker ecosystem. Ambassador is backed by the open-source community but does not have the same level of ecosystem maturity as Kong and Traefik.

5. Ingress Controller Support: Ambassador and Traefik are often used as Kubernetes ingress controllers, providing a unified entry point for external traffic into a Kubernetes cluster. Ambassador is designed specifically for Kubernetes and adopts ingress resource conventions. Traefik, being more agnostic, supports multiple ingress controller providers and can be used with other container orchestration platforms as well. Kong, while it can operate as an ingress controller, is not primarily designed for Kubernetes.

6. Commercial Support and Pricing: Kong offers enterprise-grade support and additional features through its Kong Gateway Enterprise version. Ambassador has a commercial version called Ambassador Edge Stack with enhanced features and support. Traefik also offers a subscription-based Traefik Enterprise Edition with advanced features and support. Pricing models and feature differentiations vary, so organizations need to assess their specific requirements and budget.

In Summary, Ambassador, Kong, and Traefik are all powerful API gateways with distinct characteristics. Ambassador focuses on declarative configurations, Kong emphasizes plugin-based extensibility, while Traefik excels in service discovery and Docker integration. Organizations should evaluate these differences along with their specific requirements to choose the most suitable solution for their API needs.