We compared Microsoft Azure API Management and Kong Enterprise based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
Microsoft Azure API Management stands out for its customer service and variety of pricing options, providing flexibility and value for money. Meanwhile, Kong Enterprise excels in API management capabilities and advanced security features, with praised scalability and reliability. Users highlight the need for improvements in Azure's user interface and Kong's scaling capabilities.
Features: Microsoft Azure API Management is valued for its user-friendly interface, seamless integration, and excellent security measures. On the other hand, Kong Enterprise is praised for its exceptional API management capabilities, advanced security features, and comprehensive documentation.
Pricing and ROI: When comparing the setup cost of Microsoft Azure API Management and Kong Enterprise, user feedback shows that Azure API Management offers reasonable setup costs with a streamlined onboarding process. On the other hand, Kong Enterprise users have provided insights into the costs and ease of setup but no specific information on the setup cost itself., Microsoft Azure API Management has been praised for its positive ROI, with increased efficiency, scalability, cost savings, and improved API performance. Kong Enterprise also delivers favorable ROI, enhancing business outcomes, revenue growth, efficiency, scalability, cost savings, and customer experiences.
Room for Improvement: The Microsoft Azure API Management product could benefit from improvements in user experience, documentation, support, and performance. In contrast, Kong Enterprise could enhance its scaling capabilities, user interface, documentation, error handling, and performance optimization.
Deployment and customer support: The reviews of Microsoft Azure API Management indicate varying durations for deployment and setup, ranging from one week to three months. In contrast, the reviews for Kong Enterprise also show varied durations, with some users taking a week for deployment and setup, while others taking three months. The context in which these terms are used needs to be carefully evaluated for accurate evaluation., Microsoft Azure API Management has received positive feedback for its exceptional customer service, praised for its prompt and effective assistance. Users appreciate the knowledgeable and friendly support team. Kong Enterprise's customer service is highly praised too, with prompt and effective assistance and a friendly and knowledgeable support team.
The summary above is based on 50 interviews we conducted recently with Microsoft Azure API Management and Kong Enterprise users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"I like everything about it. It provides the security we need."
"The features I like include ease of operation and implementation in a cloud environment, the dashboarding features for API statistics, and the user-friendly developer portal."
"We use the solution for load-balancing, caching, and rate-limiting APIs."
"Kong Enterprise comes with some ready plug-ins, which is very good for the customers."
"The most valuable features of Kong Enterprise are the out-of-the-box open source easy functionality."
"This is a solid intrusion prevention system that combines a firewall and antivirus in a single solution."
"Protocol transformation is the most valuable feature of Kong Enterprise."
"There are a few features that I like about Kong when it comes to authentication and authorization. Specifically, being able to use Kong for role-based access control (RBAC), and then further being able to integrate the RBAC mechanism with our enterprise directory, was very useful."
"The most valuable features are the API and integrations."
"I like the API Management functions."
"The package as a whole is useful for our customers."
"Monitoring: It gives us a detailed overview of how clients are using the API and it allows us to see the consumption trends in real-time."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure API Management is monitoring. When compared with Apigee, I prefer Microsoft Azure API Management."
"The solution has overall high performance."
"It is easy to use."
"Azure API Management is an API gateway that can be used for different purposes, for example, to monetize APIs."
"Kong Enterprise has decided not to support the web portal feature anymore, but I think that feature should stay in the on-premises solution."
"The OS upgrades are not as frequent as they should be and they are bulky."
"Kong Enterprise needs to improve its pricing, which starts at hundreds of thousands of dollars. Pricing should be based on API usage rather than monthly. It should improve its documentation as well."
"Understanding the configurations and knowing what needs to be done can be a bit difficult initially."
"We are facing issues with the solution's features like reports and traffic analysis."
"From an improvement perspective, the product should offer more readily available connectors and also allow for more seamless AI integrations."
"The solution should include policy features that are available in other solutions like MuleSoft API manager but missing in Kong Enterprise."
"The technical support team's response time needs to be improved."
"The portal where we publish the APIs could be improved. Maybe this is because we didn't configure it. It is quite easy to bypass API management because we have a lot of information shared on the portal, where we publish our APIs. I worry there is potential for a security breach in the API publishing. There needs to be more security available on terms of the way we publish them."
"Other products have more customization options."
"In the API you need to delete the suffix. It is annoying that you need to have a suffix. We can add a suffix at the API level, not at the operation level, and that could be improved on."
"They should improve the inbuilt policies that they have and that should properly create a deployment architecture as well."
"Specific to API development, I think Microsoft is still far behind AWS. AWS has grown by leaps and bounds, and Microsoft is a close second. But in terms of features and other stuff they provide, Microsoft's compatibility with publicly available APIs is a little limited. So, that is a little bit of a constraint. But what they provide is good, it's just that they need to build more on their API suite. I think Google is doing a really good job at that."
"They're trying to implement versioning and trying to be able to manage different versions of your API all at the same time, but they're not doing that just quite right yet."
"I rate the technical support from Microsoft Azure API Management a four out of five."
"Some of the DevOps stuff could be easier to work with. The migration paths are a little complicated, and moving code around could be more seamless. There should be less manual migration when several teams work together to publish code to the DevOps."
More Microsoft Azure API Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Kong Gateway Enterprise is ranked 6th in API Management with 20 reviews while Microsoft Azure API Management is ranked 1st in API Management with 68 reviews. Kong Gateway Enterprise is rated 7.8, while Microsoft Azure API Management is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Kong Gateway Enterprise writes "Provides role-based access control and can be easily customized with Lua script". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure API Management writes "Efficiently manages and monetizes API ". Kong Gateway Enterprise is most compared with WSO2 API Manager, Apigee, Apache APISIX, Layer7 API Management and MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, whereas Microsoft Azure API Management is most compared with Amazon API Gateway, Apigee, MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, IBM API Connect and WSO2 API Manager. See our Kong Gateway Enterprise vs. Microsoft Azure API Management report.
See our list of best API Management vendors.
We monitor all API Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
