Pick / avoid summary (fast)
Skim these triggers to pick a default, then validate with the quick checks and constraints below.
- ✓ Your org is AWS-first and IAM is the default auth/control plane
- ✓ You want managed convenience and fast adoption across teams
- ✓ Your request volume is moderate or you’ve modeled the cost cliff at scale
- ✓ You require portability across Kubernetes, multiple clouds, or hybrid environments
- ✓ You want consistent gateway behavior and policies across environments
- ✓ You can own gateway ops (upgrades, plugins, observability, scaling)
- × Portability is limited; policies and auth patterns become AWS-coupled
- × Pricing can cliff at high request volume (per-call + features + environments)
- × You own gateway lifecycle (deployments, upgrades, plugin maintenance, scaling)
- × Governance outcomes depend on how well you standardize policy templates and rollout
-
Portability questionwill you need the same policies in non-AWS environments within 12–24 months? If yes, Kong is usually the safer default.
-
Cost questioncompute monthly requests × per-request pricing × environments. If the cost cliff is unacceptable, managed convenience isn’t the win you think it is.
-
Ops questiondo you have a platform owner for upgrades/observability? If no, AWS API Gateway reduces platform burden.
At-a-glance comparison
AWS API Gateway
AWS-managed API gateway for AWS-first teams: fast to adopt, tightly integrated with IAM and AWS services, but can create lock-in and per-call cost cliffs at scale.
- ✓ Fast managed setup for AWS-first stacks
- ✓ Tight integration with AWS IAM, networking, and surrounding services
- ✓ Good fit for teams that want managed convenience over platform ownership
Kong
Developer-first, portable API gateway platform used to standardize routing, auth, and policy across environments when you can own the gateway ops model.
- ✓ Portable across clouds/clusters for consistent gateway patterns
- ✓ Extensible via plugins for auth, transformations, and policies
- ✓ Good fit when you want to avoid cloud-native lock-in for gateway/policy layer
What breaks first (decision checks)
These checks reflect the common constraints that decide between AWS API Gateway and Kong in this category.
If you only read one section, read this — these are the checks that force redesigns or budget surprises.
- Real trade-off: Managed AWS convenience and IAM-native integration vs a portable gateway you operate across environments (lock-in vs portability)
- Governance depth vs developer velocity: Do you need centralized policy ownership (security, quotas, transformations, audit)?
- Cloud lock-in vs portability: Is your organization AWS-first/GCP-first/Azure-first, or truly hybrid?
- Cost behavior at scale (per-call pricing, gateway sprawl): How many requests/day and environments (dev/stage/prod) will you run?
- Internal platform APIs vs external partner/public APIs: Are you exposing APIs to external partners/customers with SLAs and quotas?
Implementation gotchas
These are the practical downsides teams tend to discover during setup, rollout, or scaling.
Where AWS API Gateway surprises teams
- Portability is limited; policies and auth patterns become AWS-coupled
- Pricing can cliff at high request volume (per-call + features + environments)
- Governance and consistency across many teams is hard without a platform program
Where Kong surprises teams
- You own gateway lifecycle (deployments, upgrades, plugin maintenance, scaling)
- Governance outcomes depend on how well you standardize policy templates and rollout
- Can become gateway sprawl without strong platform patterns
Where each product pulls ahead
These are the distinctive advantages that matter most in this comparison.
AWS API Gateway advantages
- ✓ Managed convenience in AWS-first environments
- ✓ Tight IAM integration and AWS service adjacency
- ✓ Lower initial operational ownership
Kong advantages
- ✓ Portability across environments with consistent gateway patterns
- ✓ Control and extensibility via plugins and platform ownership
- ✓ Less cloud coupling when hybrid/multi-cloud is real
Pros and cons
AWS API Gateway
Pros
- + Your org is AWS-first and IAM is the default auth/control plane
- + You want managed convenience and fast adoption across teams
- + Your request volume is moderate or you’ve modeled the cost cliff at scale
- + You don’t need the same gateway/policy model outside AWS
Cons
- − Portability is limited; policies and auth patterns become AWS-coupled
- − Pricing can cliff at high request volume (per-call + features + environments)
- − Governance and consistency across many teams is hard without a platform program
- − Gateway sprawl across accounts/environments can become an operational and cost issue
Kong
Pros
- + You require portability across Kubernetes, multiple clouds, or hybrid environments
- + You want consistent gateway behavior and policies across environments
- + You can own gateway ops (upgrades, plugins, observability, scaling)
- + You’re willing to standardize templates to prevent policy drift and sprawl
Cons
- − You own gateway lifecycle (deployments, upgrades, plugin maintenance, scaling)
- − Governance outcomes depend on how well you standardize policy templates and rollout
- − Can become gateway sprawl without strong platform patterns
- − Total cost is a combination of licensing + infra + operational ownership
Keep exploring this category
If you’re close to a decision, the fastest next step is to read 1–2 more head-to-head briefs, then confirm pricing limits in the product detail pages.
FAQ
How do you choose between AWS API Gateway and Kong?
Pick AWS API Gateway if you’re AWS-first, want managed speed, and accept AWS coupling—then model per-request cost and avoid gateway sprawl. Pick Kong if you need portability across clusters/clouds and are willing to own gateway operations and policy templates. The decision is lock-in vs portability plus who owns the gateway layer.
When should you pick AWS API Gateway?
Pick AWS API Gateway when: Your org is AWS-first and IAM is the default auth/control plane; You want managed convenience and fast adoption across teams; Your request volume is moderate or you’ve modeled the cost cliff at scale; You don’t need the same gateway/policy model outside AWS.
When should you pick Kong?
Pick Kong when: You require portability across Kubernetes, multiple clouds, or hybrid environments; You want consistent gateway behavior and policies across environments; You can own gateway ops (upgrades, plugins, observability, scaling); You’re willing to standardize templates to prevent policy drift and sprawl.
What’s the real trade-off between AWS API Gateway and Kong?
Managed AWS convenience and IAM-native integration vs a portable gateway you operate across environments (lock-in vs portability)
What’s the most common mistake buyers make in this comparison?
Choosing managed convenience without modeling per-request cost and long-term coupling, then later needing portability and consistent policy across environments
What’s the fastest elimination rule?
Portability question: will you need the same policies in non-AWS environments within 12–24 months? If yes, Kong is usually the safer default.
What breaks first with AWS API Gateway?
Cost predictability as traffic becomes steady and request volume grows. Consistency across teams (policy drift) without templates and platform enforcement. Portability when you later need cross-cloud governance or migration.
What are the hidden constraints of AWS API Gateway?
Cost drivers include requests, features used, and environment/gateway sprawl. Lock-in grows as auth, policies, and routing patterns become AWS-specific. Cross-account patterns and governance require deliberate standardization.
Share this comparison
Sources & verification
We prefer to link primary references (official pricing, documentation, and public product pages). If links are missing, treat this as a seeded brief until verification is completed.