Conduit vs Istio: What are the differences?

Introduction:

Conduit and Istio are both service mesh solutions that offer various features for managing and securing microservices architectures. However, there are key differences between the two that are important to understand when choosing between them.

1. Proxy Technology: Conduit uses a lightweight data plane proxy called Linkerd, which is designed for minimal resource consumption and fast performance. On the other hand, Istio uses Envoy, a highly extensible and powerful proxy that provides advanced routing and load balancing capabilities.

2. Control Plane Architecture: Conduit follows a simpler control plane architecture with most of the logic embedded directly in the proxy. In contrast, Istio has a more complex control plane setup with separate components such as Pilot, Mixer, and Citadel for policy enforcement, telemetry, and security.

3. Programming Language Support: Conduit is written in Rust and Go, making it suitable for environments with a preference for these languages. In comparison, Istio is primarily written in C++ and Go, which may require different skills for customization and contributions.

4. Community and Ecosystem: Istio has a larger and more active community, which results in a broader range of integrations, extensions, and support resources. Conduit, being a newer project, may have a smaller ecosystem and fewer third-party tools available for adoption.

5. Performance Overhead: Due to its lightweight proxy, Conduit is known for its minimal performance overhead compared to Istio, which, with its feature-rich proxy and control plane components, may introduce a higher resource utilization and latency.

6. Adoption and Maturity: Istio is a more mature project with a longer history of development and deployment in production environments, offering proven scalability and reliability. Conduit, as a newer project, may still be evolving in terms of features, stability, and adoption rates.

In Summary, Conduit and Istio differ in proxy technology, control plane architecture, programming language support, community size, performance overhead, and adoption maturity levels.