Conductor vs Kong: What are the differences?

# Introduction
This Markdown code addresses the key differences between Conductor and Kong, two popular technologies used for API management.

1. **Architecture**: Conductor is a workflow orchestration engine that focuses on managing and executing complex business processes, while Kong is an API gateway that acts as a middleware layer between clients and servers to manage API traffic and security.
2. **Use Case**: Conductor is primarily utilized for workflow automation and managing dependencies between tasks in a distributed environment, whereas Kong is designed for API traffic management, authentication, authorization, and rate limiting.
3. **Deployment**: Conductor can be deployed on-premises or in the cloud, offering flexibility in where workflows are orchestrated, while Kong is typically deployed as a gateway in front of APIs to manage incoming and outgoing traffic.
4. **Plugins**: Kong provides a wide range of plugins for extending functionality, such as logging, monitoring, and authentication mechanisms, whereas Conductor focuses more on workflow-related features and lacks the extensive plugin ecosystem of Kong.
5. **Scalability**: Conductor is optimized for horizontal scaling to handle large-scale workflows and complex dependencies, whereas Kong is built for high availability, performance, and scalability to efficiently manage API traffic in distributed systems.
6. **Community Support**: Kong has a vibrant open-source community with frequent updates, extensive documentation, and community-contributed plugins, while Conductor has a smaller but active community, which may impact the availability of resources and support. 

In Summary, Conductor and Kong differ in their architecture, use cases, deployment options, plugin ecosystems, scalability, and community support.