Apiman vs Kong: What are the differences?
Introduction
Apiman and Kong are both API management platforms that offer similar functionalities. However, there are several key differences between the two platforms.
-
Deployment Flexibility: Apiman provides more deployment flexibility compared to Kong. Apiman can be deployed on-premises, in the cloud, or in a hybrid environment, offering more options to organizations with specific deployment requirements. On the other hand, Kong is primarily designed for cloud-native deployments, making it a better fit for organizations that are cloud-centric.
-
Plugin Extensibility: Kong offers a wide range of plugins, giving users the ability to enhance its functionalities. It provides a rich ecosystem of community-contributed and commercially supported plugins. In contrast, while Apiman also has plugin support, the number and variety of available plugins are comparatively limited. This difference in plugin extensibility can be an important consideration for organizations depending on their specific integration and customization needs.
-
Enterprise-Grade Features: Apiman is well-known for its extensive set of enterprise-grade features. It offers advanced capabilities such as policy enforcement, security features, rate limiting, and analytics, making it an attractive choice for organizations that require comprehensive API management functionalities. While Kong also provides some enterprise-grade features, it may not have the same level of depth and breadth as Apiman.
-
Community and Support: Kong has a thriving community and active support channels. It has a large user base and a dedicated team constantly working on improving and expanding the platform. This can be advantageous for organizations that prefer a well-established and widely adopted solution with extensive community support. Although Apiman also has community support and continuous development, it may not enjoy the same level of community engagement and extensive third-party integration as Kong.
-
Scalability: Both Apiman and Kong are designed to be scalable, but Kong is often considered more scalable due to its architecture. Kong utilizes a highly performant and lightweight Nginx core, making it capable of handling high loads and processing large amounts of API traffic efficiently. While Apiman can scale well too, Kong's architecture and performance optimizations may make it a better choice for organizations that anticipate high API traffic and require exceptional scalability.
-
Pricing: Lastly, pricing can be a significant differentiator between Apiman and Kong. While specific pricing details may vary based on an organization's requirements and negotiations, generally, Kong follows a commercial model with various subscription plans available. At the same time, Apiman is an open-source platform with no direct licensing costs, making it a more cost-effective option for budget-conscious organizations.
In summary, Apiman offers more deployment flexibility and is a cost-effective choice, while Kong provides stronger plugin extensibility, a vibrant community, and better scalability. Both platforms have enterprise-grade features, but Apiman may excel in depth and breadth, depending on specific requirements.
