Kong Gateway vs Kuma
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted reverse proxy & gateways options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
Kong Gateway
Cloud-native, fast, scalable API gateway
VS
Kuma
Universal service mesh for Kubernetes and VMs
| Feature | Kong Gateway | Kuma |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Reverse Proxy & Gateways | Reverse Proxy & Gateways |
| License | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | Lua | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 512 MB | 1,024 MB |
| Deployment | docker, kubernetes, helm | kubernetes, helm, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 43,947 | ★ 3,990 |
| First released | 2015 | 2019 |
| Replaces | AWS API Gateway, Apigee | Istio, Linkerd |
Why pick each one
Choose Kong Gateway if…
- Released under the Apache-2.0 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Kubernetes-ready with Helm charts available
- Mature project with 43.9k GitHub stars
Choose Kuma if…
- Released under the Apache-2.0 license
- Kubernetes-ready with Helm charts available
- Active community (4k GitHub stars)
- Written in Go
Frequently asked questions
Is Kong Gateway or Kuma better?
Kong Gateway is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler medium setup. Consider Kuma if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are Kong Gateway and Kuma free and open-source?
Yes. Kong Gateway is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Kuma under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Kong Gateway and Kuma with Docker?
Kong Gateway: yes. Kuma: check the project docs for container support.