Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Claudia vs Kuma: What are the differences?
Claudia: Deploy Node.js microservices to AWS Lambda and API Gateway easily. Claudia helps you deploy Node.js microservices to Amazon Web Services easily. It automates and simplifies deployment workflows and error prone tasks, so you can focus on important problems and not have to worry about AWS service quirks; Kuma: Build, Secure and Observe your modern Service Mesh. It is a universal open source control-plane for Service Mesh and Microservices that can run and be operated natively across both Kubernetes and VM environments, in order to be easily adopted by every team in the organization.
Claudia and Kuma can be primarily classified as "Microservices" tools.
Some of the features offered by Claudia are:
- Create or update Lambda functions and Web APIs from Node.js projects hassle-free
- Automatically configure the Lambda function for commonly useful tasks
- Automatically set up API Gateway resources the way Javascript developers expect them to work
On the other hand, Kuma provides the following key features:
- Universal Control Plane
- Lightweight Data Plane
- Automatic
Claudia and Kuma are both open source tools. Claudia with 3.27K GitHub stars and 225 forks on GitHub appears to be more popular than Kuma with 789 GitHub stars and 31 GitHub forks.
One of our applications is currently migrating to AWS, and we need to make a decision between using AWS API Gateway with AWS App Mesh, or Kong API Gateway with Kuma.
Some people advise us to benefit from AWS managed services, while others raise the vendor lock issue. So, I need your advice on that, and if there is any other important factor rather than vendor locking that I must take into consideration.
The benefit of using Kuma + Kong Gateway are:
- Feature-set: Kong + Kuma provide an end-to-end solution for both APIM and Service Mesh with a feature-set, and a performance, that is not matched by AWS services. In addition to this you can extend Kong Gateway with 70+ plugins out of the box and choose between 500+ plugins from the community to cover every use-case. In comparison, the feature-set of AWS API Gateway is quite limited and basic.
- Performance: Especially in the case of Kong Gateway, performance has always been a top priority for the project (more performance deliver more reliable applications). In some benchmarks the latency added by AWS API Gateway can be 200x more than what you would achieve with Kong Gateway natively which has been hand-crafted for maximum throughput.
- Cost: While cloud vendors like AWS make it very easy to get up and running with their services at a lower initial cost, that cost ramps up very quickly (exponentially) as the number of requests are increasing. With Kong GW you don't have this problem, since you can run tens of thousands of concurrent requests on a small EC2 instance (or Kubernetes Ingress, via the native K8s ingress controller for Kong Gateway).
- Portability: You can replicate your infrastructure on any other cloud, or on your development machines with ease. Want to run your gateway + mesh on your local Kubernetes cluster? You can do that. Want to run your infrastructure on another cloud provider? You can do that. Strategically you have full ownership of your infrastructure and its future. When it comes to Kuma, you can also run a Mesh on VM-based workloads in addition to Kubernetes (Kuma is universal).
- And much more.
Disclaimer: I am the CTO of Kong.
AWS App Mesh is useful when your micro services are deployed across Ec2 , EKS or ECS. Assume you are in process of migrating microservices from ec2 instances to ecs, its easy to switch using Virtual router configuration. As App Mesh is managed service and easy to bring up ,its worth giving it a try for your use case before choosing Kuma or any other tool.
Pros of Claudia
- Easy setup2
